Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jeffpw (talk | contribs)
9,574 edits
→‎Comfort women: watchlisted
 
Line 1:
{{Short description|Noticeboard for reporting incidents to administrators}}
{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.-->{{/Header}}</noinclude>{{clear}}
{{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K800K
|counter = 4531167
|algo = old(24h72h)
|key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c
|key = 4636e7fd80174f8cb324fd91d06d906d
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d
|headerlevel=2
}}
{{stack end}}
<!--
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE
NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE-->
 
== EnglishDude98 topic ban ==
----------------------------------------------------------
{{atop
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
| result = EnglishDude98 INDEFfed by Barkeep and warned against further logged out editing (by me) as the block applies to the editor not the account. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 21:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
----------------------------------------------------------
}}
 
{{user|EnglishDude98}} has received multiple warnings from a few users regarding their conduct, including numerous messages from me regarding creating mainspace articles even though draft articles (in either draft or user space) already exist.
-->
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
 
A few days ago they said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEnglishDude98&diff=1244867729&oldid=1244867144 they would stop doing this] - today they have created [[Dylan Mitchell]], even though [[Draft:Dylan Mitchell]] already exists. This is their second attempt at creating the article.
== WorkerBee74 on Obama page again ==
 
As a side note, lots of their articles appear to fail GNG.
{{User5|WorkerBee74}} has returned from a one-week block[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWorkerBee74&diff=224287666&oldid=224232291] for incivility and wikigaming on [[Barack Obama]]-related articles to wikigame again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Die4Dixie&diff=prev&oldid=226652039] and provoke yet more dissent and rancor.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226637378][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226639172][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226680234][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226682108][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226684429] I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Given they will continue to create duplicate and non-notable articles, I suggest a topic ban from article creation, broadly construed. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:I support Wikidemo's post here. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]]</strong>/<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Looking into their contribs a bit deeper while I have time, [[Joel McGregor]] is a duplicate of the topic recently deleted at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel McGregor]]. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
::Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. [[Special:Contributions/74.94.99.17|74.94.99.17]] ([[User talk:74.94.99.17|talk]]) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:'''Weak support''' - Unless there are enough sources available, they should not create an article. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 00:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP [[WP:SOCK]]s. See [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74]]. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose for now'''. I think that yes, EnglishDude98 needs to stop making "duplicate" and non-notable articles. However, I'm not sure that the articles they are making are always clear cut CSD or PROD-able, some of them should go through AfD, as it's not black or white. I think they have potential to make valuable articles in the future. They have created some articles that are actually not that bad ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=EnglishDude98&namespace=all&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50 see here]). They just need to learn first what constitutes notability.<br>If EnglishDude98 ''continues'' their disruptive habits from this point forward, ping me again and I will reconsider my position. [[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] ([[User talk:Paul Vaurie|talk]]) 01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, to be fair, the recently created [[Connor McAvoy (footballer, born 2002)]] appears good. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Although {{ping|Paul Vaurie}}, they are still trying to get non-notable articles into mainsapce generally, see [[Draft:Jack Henry-Francis]] which has rightfully been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AJack_Henry-Francis&diff=1245622027&oldid=1245604257 declined].
*::Putting the draft duplication issues to side for a moment, EnglishDude98 shows a fundamental lack of understanding about notability, which combined with a clear ongoing desire to create articles, is disruptive. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 07:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
 
*This editor is now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finn_Ashworth&diff=1245661156&oldid=1245661094 removing AFD tags from articles]. Will anybody intervene to stop the disruption? Does nobody care? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 14:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:I coined that phrase and other editors and administrators have warned you that you attack me by using such dismissive language as disruptive. Your action of reporting people here does not give you license to attack people. Your previous bleating behaviour about me and shrill attacks are unacceptable, as well as your psuedo-officious talkpage warnings are passive agressive behaviour. Her is one for you: Continue to engage in your antisocial behaviour, and it will be you who will be blocked. Consider yourself warned and nough of your meritless gaming the AN/I system to attack user as you did me.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* '''Support''' this is a pretty clear case of an editor practicing [[WP:TEND]] editing, stopping him from creating articles is a gentle way of handling this. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 18:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::::What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. [[Special:Contributions/74.94.99.17|74.94.99.17]] ([[User talk:74.94.99.17|talk]]) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
::Despite numerous editors sending his articles to AFD - his talk page is now riddled with the notifications - EnglishDude98 (who I note has not commented here) continues to create impressive looking but ultimately non-notable articles. He is a time sink. He needs to be topic banned. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support.''' This editor either doesn't understand or doesn't care about GNG and their failure to search for existing drafts is troubling too. [[User:MarchOfTheGreyhounds|<span style="background:black; color:yellow;">'''March'''''OfThe''</span>]][[User Talk:MarchOfTheGreyhounds|<span style="background:black; color:#D3D3D3">'''Greyhounds'''</span>]] 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:Might be related to/working with [[User:Das osmnezz]]? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::Unlikely, I think. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Another non-notable recent creation, [[Mayowa Animasahun]], has just been draftified by another user. Can we get the topic ban in place please? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::pretty unbelievable that nothing has been done despite this editor's absolute refusal to listen. [[User:MarchOfTheGreyhounds|<span style="background:black; color:yellow;">'''March'''''OfThe''</span>]][[User Talk:MarchOfTheGreyhounds|<span style="background:black; color:#D3D3D3">'''Greyhounds'''</span>]] 17:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Fully agree, incredibly frustrating. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Especially as non-notable articles are still being created... [[Andrew Wogan]] the latest example, which I will be sending to AFD in due course. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*Given the concerns raised and that disruption is continuing even while this thread exists (and previous agreement to stop) I have blocked EnglishDude98. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you! [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*::...user is now unblocked. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
 
* I've seriously learnt my lesson after the last few days in terms of creating non-notable articles. I won't bother making any more NON NOTABLE pages in that case; I will edit on pages which are notable. [[User:EnglishDude98]]
:::::If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose TB''' hopefully, the recent block experience will focus their minds on what is expected in article creation (and also, vis à vis, not wasting several editor's time—from Giant Snowman, to the commentators here, to the AfD filers, to the AfD commentators...etc). [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:As long as EnglishDude stops creating articles and drafts, I see no problem. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
 
* Yes it has focused my mind on what is expected in terms of creating articles veral editor's time—from Giant Snowman, to the commentators here, to the AfD filers, to the AfD commentators...etc). [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' and I apologise to [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] et al for wasting their time on this, I've learnt the errors of my way and will be open to help from other users in the future when it comes to creating new articles on here. [[User:EnglishDude98]] 19:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the ''one month old case'' on him at [[WP:SSP]] (and if [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth]] had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. [[User:The Evil Spartan|The Evil Spartan]] ([[User talk:The Evil Spartan|talk]]) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
*:Note that EnglishDude has now been re-blocked by {{ping|Barkeep49}}. Unsure why, but EnglishDude ''did'' create [[Patrick Gamble (footballer)]] after previously promising not to create any more articles... [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 13:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Now socking as {{IP|2A06:5902:180C:5800:B59A:511C:5C85:33F4}}. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Remove unsourced content added by disruptive, bad faith, and biased editor Spworld2 ==
:Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=226729643&oldid=226722493] - {{unsigned|Wikidemo}}
::As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 
It seems User:Spworld2 is incorregible. Because of too much influence of a COI ([[WP:COI]]), Spworld2 would be ready to get even an '''indefinite block'''. This is because [[EK Samastha]] and its followers are strong in claiming the legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 that they conducted the [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2023/Dec/31/samastha-distancesitself-from-row-over-temple-consecration-2646363.html centenary declaration conference (as per a source)] or the inauguration conference in [[Bengaluru]], which is outside Kerala, while [[EK Samastha]]'s name includes "[[Kerala]]" and the full name means "All Kerala Ulama Organisation" as per the [[EK Samastha]]'s [https://samastha.info/history website]; after the [https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2023/12/31/samatha-kerala-jem-iyyathul-ulama-to-develop-10000-model-villages-says-kanthapuram.amp.html promulgation conference] by the faction of [[AP Samastha]] in [[Kasaragod]]. Spworld2 apparently and certainly belongs to a particular type of supporters of [[EK Samastha]] who are not ready to edit neutrally or edit as per the source. So an '''indefinite topic ban''' on both Samasthas and related topics, such as its subsidiaries, would be needed. I at least seek the intervention of admins '''to remove the unsourced content''', especially the unsourced content in [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction).
:::Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like [[Gaming the system]] and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. I '''endorse''' a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--[[User:Crohnie|<span style="color:orangered">'''Crohnie'''</span><span style="color:deeppink">'''Gal'''</span>]][[User talk:Crohnie|<span style="color:deepskyblue"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
See also several [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Neutralhappy/sandbox&oldid=1245747036 disruptive and unhelpful] edits by Spworld2 [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 22:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Can we ''please'' do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet. Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226870998] and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=226801634&oldid=226735866], and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBill_Ayers_election_controversy&diff=226877857&oldid=226875683] He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Spworld2 has been [[User talk:Spworld2#September 2024|informed]] about this ongoing discussion on their talk page. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk:Floridianed|talk]]) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::{{u|Neutralhappy}}, you need to provide convincing evidence in the form of [[WP:DIFF|diffs]]. You have not yet done so. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 23:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, any editor can provide sources or tag with "citation needed" or if all else fails, remove implausible or false unsourced content. That does not require administrator's tools. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 23:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The diffs seem to be presented in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Neutralhappy/sandbox&oldid=1245747036 this version] of the filer's sandbox (linked in mobile view in the last sentence), with this post serving as a summary. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Now, I have provided convincing evidence in the form of [[Help:Diff|diffs]]. Spworld2 would definitely need an '''indefinite topic ban''' on both Samasthas and the related topics, such as their subsidiaries. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 11:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''<big> Remedies </big>'''
:*1) Remove all mentions of the term "'''(AP Sunnis)'''" in bold in the article, except in the title, since it is not part of the name of the organisation of AP Sunnis.
:*2) Remove the statement that [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)| Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) is known as "'''Samastha (AP Faction)'''", because it is unsourced. Instead, say it is known as "'''Samastha'''" since the sources say so ([https://web.archive.org/web/20240114162725/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/kanthapuram-samastha-kicks-off-centenary-celebrations/article67692731.ece 1], [https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/increase-in-suicides-linked-to-ignorance-says-kanthapuram-1.9718644 2], [https://theprint.in/india/no-freedom-for-islamic-activities-in-any-country-like-that-in-india-says-keralite-muslim-scholar/1340475/ 3], [https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2023/12/31/samatha-kerala-jem-iyyathul-ulama-to-develop-10000-model-villages-says-kanthapuram.amp.html 4]).
:*3) How should we treat the time of formation, the founder, and the history until the so-called split of Samastha in 1989? Based on the source or by arbitrarily considering one of them or both of them as new organisations? Please help decide it.
:** I suggest the removal of the '''unsourced''' statements (including in the infobox) that the [[AP Samastha]] was founded in 1989 and that the founder of [[AP Samastha]] is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar.
:*4) Remove the mention that Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar ever became the president of any Samastha, since no source supports it.
:*5) Remove the mention that headquarters of [[AP Samastha]] is Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya, for two reasons: it is unsourced and it [https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=122103943976164720&set=a.122093371106164720 appears] dubious since a post of a Facebook page, supporting the AP faction, says "Samastha Centre, Kozhikode-6" below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama".
:'''If I remove the unsourced content, Spworld2 will add it again. So someone else need to intervene.''' [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 06:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''<big>Addition of unsourced content by Spworld2</big>'''
:*Spworld2 also added unsourced content ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1233495997 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1239583901 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1239782916 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1240072695 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1240757746 5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241123449 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241444875 7], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241811710 8], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245661777 9]) in the infobox that the formation of [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) is in 1989 and its founder is [[Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar|Kanthapuram]]. The sources cited by Spworld2 to add 1989 as the year of formation or [[Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar|Kanthapuram]] as the founder in the infobox do not support the addition by Spworld2. These two ([https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/after-mujahid-merger-call-for-sunni-unity/articleshow/56292036.cms 1], [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2023/Jul/04/by-revisiting-unity-talks-sunni-groups-look-to-bury-differences-2591117.html 2]) are the sources Spworld2 used to add 1989 as the year of formation and [[Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar|Kanthapuram]] as the founder of [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction), in the infobox. These two do not support Spworld2's claim. On the other hand, Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1241246298 wants to add] 1926 as the year of formation and [[Varakkal Mullakoya Thangal]] as the founder of [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (EK faction) in the infobox of the article for [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (EK faction).
:*Spworld2 again wrongfully [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241444875 changed] the year of formation of AP Samastha without citing a source. The [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2023/Jul/04/by-revisiting-unity-talks-sunni-groups-look-to-bury-differences-2591117.html source] given does not even mention "'''1986'''".
:*Spworld2 wants to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245663988 advance] the position that the founder of AP Samastha is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, without citing a source.
:*Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245665704 added] the headquarters of AP Samastha as Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya without citing a source, though this [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=122103943976164720&set=a.122093371106164720&type=3&app=fbl appears] to be wrong since the place shown below "Samastha Kerala Jam-iyyathul Ulama" in a post of a Facebook page supporting the AP faction is "Samastha Center, Kozhikode-6".
:*Spworld2 says Kanthapuram is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245667254 founding president] of AP Samastha, which must be false, not only because there could not be a single source stating Kanthapuram ever was a president of any Samastha, either before the so-called split in Samastha in 1989 or after it; but also because at the time of the reorganisation of Samastha in 1989, Kanthapuram was made the general secretary and Ullal Thangal the president.
:'''<big>Removal of sourced content by Spworld2</big>'''
:*Spworld2 also removed content to advance the view of the people associated with EK Samastha by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241445305 removing] the sourced content.
:*See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1233504557 this] sourced content removal by Spworld2.
:*See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245661369 this] sourced content removal by Spworld2.
:*Spworld2 removed the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245662775 sourced] content about the flag of Samastha, probably to suppress the AP faction version of the narrative about the flag.
:*Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245663128 removed] "'''Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama"''' because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha being referred to as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", though the sources given against it refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama". See what the sources say also. Instead, Spworld2 replaced the term "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" with "All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama", another organisation of AP Sunnis.
:*Soworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245666131 removed] the sourced content, giving a false edit summary.
:''' <big>Unhelpful editing by Spworld2</big> '''
:*Both Samasthas are known as Samastha. But Spworld2 made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241444875 this unhelpful edit], by changing {{tq|also known as ''' Samastha'''}} to {{tq|also known as ''' Samastha (AP Faction)'''}} even though there are numerous sources to support it and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&oldid=1241363928 5 sources] are present in the article to support it. Note there is not a single source that says [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) is known as "Samastha (AP Faction)" or "Samastha (AP faction)". Spworld2 apparently and probably made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241444875 this] edit to get a positive result to the [[Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024|Spworld2's move request]] and thus get [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)|the page]] moved to "Samastha (AP Faction)".
:*Spworld2 made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1241247258 this] unhelpful edit by changing "Flag of EK Samastha" to "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama flag". In fact, it is the flag of [[EK Samastha]] only. This edit by Spworld2 would mislead readers that there is no difference of opinion regarding the flag used by both Samasthas. In fact, [[AP Samastha]] uses a [https://www.sirajlive.com/samasta-100th-annual-declaration-conference-on-30th-at-chattanchal-flag-will-be-raised-on-29th-flag-march-from-talangara.html?s different flag]. This is especially problematic since both flags appear to be the same, though there are minor differences.
:* Spworld2 removed "of EK Sunnis", which distinguishes the organisation, by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1240450120 this] edit. In addition, Spworld2 removed the part that clarifies the misunderstanding that there are two Samasthas in the same edit.
:'''<big>Spworld2's character of not maintaining neutrality</big>'''
:* Spworld2 wanted to advance the view of the people associated with [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)|EK Samastha]] in the page [[Samastha]], by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha&diff=prev&oldid=1240458887 removing] the part "(EK faction)" given against [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (EK faction) in it.
:* Spworld2 did not maintain neutrality and thus expressed having a COI ([[WP:CONFLICT]]) in the pages: [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction), [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)| Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (EK faction) and [[Samastha]].
:'''<big>Unwanted placement of clarfy tag by Spworld2</big>'''
:* Though there is nothing unclear Spworld2 placed the clarify tags ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1233503285 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241446186 2]), without giving a reason. Later, Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245663819 removed] the content altogether just because Spworld2 hates AP Samastha and its success.
:'''<big>Repeated addition of EK Samastha's only position without citing source to support it, by Spworld2 </big>'''
:* See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1240244879 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1240458107 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spworld2&diff=prev&oldid=1241123020 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1240243774 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1241477607 5]
:'''<big>Disruptive edits by Spworld2 even after getting warning</big>'''
:* Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241444875 added] an unsourced content, even after getting a warning (see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spworld2&diff=prev&oldid=1241111114 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spworld2&diff=prev&oldid=1241110160 2]). The [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2023/Jul/04/by-revisiting-unity-talks-sunni-groups-look-to-bury-differences-2591117.html source] says about the split of Samastha in 1989, not the formation of [[AP Samastha]]. Nor does the source say [[Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar|Kanthapuram]] is the founder of [[AP Samastha]].
:'''<big>Links of previous discussions</big>'''
:*[[Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama#When was the formation of EK Samastha?]]
:*[[Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024]]
:* [[Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#How to deal with the year of formation in pages for both AP and EK Samasthas]]
:* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) & Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)]]
:* [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) and Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)]]
:[[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:I can see nothing here that belongs at [[WP:ANI]]. This discussion only seems to add one venue to the already too long list of venues where the content issue is being discussed. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::I rather disagree with you since this [[WP:ANI]] is meant to deal with chronic, intractable behavioral problems, as this venue itself says: {{talkquote|This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} I came here not mainly to discuss but to get an action taken against the bad faith, disruptive, and biased editor Spworld2, or mainly to get the unsourced content removed. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased". If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss. All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::::First of all, thanks for your reply. Have you found out that America is '''known as''' USA? If yes, should we avoid saying America is known as USA in the Wikipedia article on America, because some people hate to refer to America as USA? What is your answer? Whether it is yes or no, the same applies to both Samasthas, since both of them are known as "Samastha". Spworld2 hates to refer to [[AP Samastha]] as a Samastha, so Spworld2 replaced "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (AP Faction)",{{mdash}}which is similar to saying [[Taiwan]] is "known as '''China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction)'''",{{mdash}}without citing any source though the given sources against it refer to [[AP Samastha]] as "Samastha". If it is not a problem, the same should apply to [[EK Samastha]], where Spworld2 had not applied the same, by replacing the term "known as Samastha" with "known as Samastha (EK faction)", because Spworld2 wants to project only [[EK Samastha]] is known as Samastha, obviously to advance the view of the EK faction (people affiliated with EK Samastha) that the only [[EK Samastha]] is the real continuation of the Samastha founded in 1926. If it is not a problem add "known as '''China ([name of founder of Taiwan] Faction)''', by replacing the "[name of founder of Taiwan]" with the founder's name in the article [[Taiwan]]. Likewise, add similar terms coined by Wikipedia editors in several other articles. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 14:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1240450195 removed] the boldening of the term "EK Samastha" because Spworld2 wants only [[EK Samastha]] referred to as "Samastha" without qualification. Which Wikipedia guideline suggests mentioning alternative names of a subject without boldening it. Therefore, it is not only an act of disruptive editing but vandalism also. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 15:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241444875 edit] by Spworld2 changed "also known as Samastha" to "also known as Samastha (AP Faction)", the change [[Talk:Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)#Requested move 10 August 2024|this move request]] is seeking for, without any supporting citations, though the use of "Samastha" to refer to Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction) was supported by 5 sources at the time of this change. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::As for Phil Bridger's comment, each sentence (specially shown) is rebutted as follows:
::::{{talkquote|This board is for deciding whether an editor is "bad faith, disruptive, and biased".}} I do not contest this, nor do I need to. {{talkquote|If you presuppose that, as you did in the original title of this section, then there is nothing to discuss.}} A discussion can take place even if all sides has already taken opposing positions. Furthermore, this venue is to report "chronic intractable behavioural problems", which has to be ascertained '''before''' reporting on this venue. {{talkquote|All I have found out here is that Sunni Muslims are just as factional as evangelical Christians or Trotskyites.}} All you have found may be the whole universe, but they may not be relevant here. Here, we need evidence such as, sources, and [[Help:diff|diffs]]. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 16:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|Neutralhappy}} Have you attempted to resolve this issue at [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]]? If not, I think that would be a logical next step for you and Spworld2 to resolve these disagreements. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 01:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:'''Sorry, I was busy and didn't see the discussion'''. '''There was no World War here to mention so much''' Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|this section]] [[User:Spworld2|Spworld2]] ([[User talk:Spworld2|talk]]) 04:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
* Consider starting an RFC on user conduct asap. Remember to provide diffs, and clearly mark recent evidence of misconduct between the previous block and when the RFC has been certified. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::If Spworld2 is saying, "{{tq|Removed some content that was not article related and misquoted and clearly explained it. Not much to discuss, apparently in this section}}" about the edits Spworld2 made on [[AP Samastha]] and [[EK Samastha]], it is false, since they were neither misquoted nor unrelated. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 05:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::Do we have to make the case from scratch again? We've been through this a dozen times now. That's extremely time consuming given the extensive history here, and always acrimonious - I get personally attacked every time by this editor and cohorts and scolded by well-intentioned administrators new to the situation that it's just two sides fighting, only a content dispute, I should put up with it, etc. Why can't we just implement the topic ban that everyone keeps proposing? [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::'''Fact'''
:::I don't think that'll be effective enough, and, I don't think admins are going to give the all clear for it. If you do the RFC, you can take it to ArbCom if it becomes a problem again. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::[[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] is a Sunni Islamic organization established in 1926 in [[Kerala]], [[India]].
::::That doesn't leave many good options. I'm not sure I want to invest that kind of time right now or be subjected to the inevitable backlash. At an RfC people will judge the most recent behavior in isolation as a fresh issue without considering the history of the article, escalating sanctions, sockpuppetry, etc. He has thrown the gauntlet as I said - by attacking me again, and taunting me for coming here, if you guys do nothing he's emboldened and he can do it again and blame me for "whining", deliberately provoking people so I can have them blocked, etc. If no admins are willing to stick with it we may just end up in a free for all again on the article. Maybe I should just start striking or deleting his comments when he attacks me. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::This makes it the largest legally functioning Sunni Islamic organization in India.
:::::I distinctly remember a certain Bigtimepeace saying he'd be looking at the article in response to my suggestions of individual sanctions (which got enacted later down the track anyway!) - what happened to his 'watch' over the article? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::In 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase), due to a slight difference of opinion from this organization, under the leadership of [[Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar]], he resigned (separated) from this organization and went and formed a [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)|new organization]]. It is known as '''AP Samastha''', '''AP Sunni''', '''Samastha (AP Faction)''' and '''Kanthapuram Faction'''[https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/kanthapuram-a-p-sunni-faction-criticises-jamaat-e-islami-s-alliance-with-udf-1.5195210][https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/kanthapuram-sunni-faction-backs-jaleel/articleshow/78134572.cms][https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/abs/islamic-traditionalism-in-a-globalizing-world-sunni-muslim-identity-in-kerala-south-india/244E92AD4C35A466FF52AF02F6329F24] [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348940722_Islamic_Traditionalism_in_a_Globalizing_World_Sunni_Muslim_identity_in_Kerala_South_India].
::::::The editor is continuing,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227026158&oldid=227023369] so at this point I have deleted part of his comment[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227030534&oldid=227026158] and asked him to stop.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WorkerBee74&diff=prev&oldid=227032139] I don't know what else to do. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Established in 1926, the [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] organization is still functioning in India.
=== Time out ===
::But this editor (@Neutralhappy) has the information and history of the organization founded in 1926 in the same way Wrote in the [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)|new organization]] adding unsourced information along with it.
I would like the opinion of ''uninvolved'' admins and experienced users here. WorkerBee74 is a [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=WorkerBee74&site=en.wikipedia.org single-purpose agenda account], one of a handful on pages related to Obama. He has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:WorkerBee74 blocked 4 times] in the ~50 days since his account was created. There is a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth|strong suspicion]] that he's logging out to support himself with IP edits. I propose to indefinitely block this account and move on.<p>On the other hand, an argument could be made that essentially all he does is argue at [[Talk:Barack Obama]] - note [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=WorkerBee74&site=en.wikipedia.org 227 edits to the talk page and only 11 to the article]. A case could be made to just ignore him unless he either has a cogent, civilly expressed content point or starts edit-warring on the article. I would like some feedback before implementing anything. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::'''This editor focuses only on [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)|this page]] and spends a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Neutralhappy&target=Neutralhappy&offset=&limit=500 lot of time on this], and it is discussed in many places to keep it alive. Writing in promotional style. It feels [[WP:COI]]''' [[User:Spworld2|Spworld2]] ([[User talk:Spworld2|talk]]) 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You are telling a lie that Kanthapuram resigned from Samastha. Moreover, the matter that the Kanthapuram faction created a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926 is a POV pushing. In addition, [[AP Samastha]] has the same name, registration number, and flag Samastha had before the so-called split in 1989. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 06:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::'''[[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)| AP Samastha]] was formed between 1989 (1986-1989 Time phase)'''
::::When a new organization is '''formed it will have a year''', it will '''have a cause/reason''', it will have a '''founder''',
::::'''the same description and the same year of formation should not be written the same in two articles'''.
::::In the absence of the above facts it is against policy to create the article as a new organization.
::::'''According to your arguments'''
::::'''If these two are same ??'''
::::'''Merge''' into [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (existing organization) article [[User:Spworld2|Spworld2]] ([[User talk:Spworld2|talk]]) 06:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::<big> Problems with sources cited by Spworld2 </big>
:::The following are the sources cited by Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Spworld2-20240916060200-Spworld2-20240916045800 here] to say the AP faction formed a new Samastha that has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. The first and the second sources do not say it at all, while the third and the fourth ones are the same source that says the AP faction created a new organisation after a split in Samastha. This is the fist time Spworld2 cited a source before me to claim the AP Samastha has no legacy of the Samastha founded in 1926. See what is the problem with them:
:::*1) [https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/kanthapuram-a-p-sunni-faction-criticises-jamaat-e-islami-s-alliance-with-udf-1.5195210 1]
:::This does not say the AP faction created a new Samastha.
:::*2) [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/kanthapuram-sunni-faction-backs-jaleel/articleshow/78134572.cms 2]
:::This also does not say the AP faction created a new Samastha.
:::*3) [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/abs/islamic-traditionalism-in-a-globalizing-world-sunni-muslim-identity-in-kerala-south-india/244E92AD4C35A466FF52AF02F6329F24 3]
:::This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha.
:::*4) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348940722_Islamic_Traditionalism_in_a_Globalizing_World_Sunni_Muslim_identity_in_Kerala_South_India 4]
:::This source claims the AP faction created a new Samastha, without interviewing the witnesses or the leaders of either faction who have the most authoritative knowledge. This happens when they depend only on sources having a conflict of interest, without taking into account what the other side has to say, while this also makes the study not all dissimilar to conflict of interest sources and biased sources. The EK faction's main activity since the so-called split in Samastha, for about two decades, was to allege so many different frauds with the AP faction, particularly Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. For that, the EK faction tried their level best to calim AP Samastha is a fake one. However, independent periodicals still continue refer to AP Samastha as "Samastha" without any qualification and as "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" without any qualification. There are several sources that use the term "EK faction" and "AP faction" to distinguish both of them form the other, meaning generally independent sources tend to agree both Samasthas' claim of being the real Samastha. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 08:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''<big>Conflict of interest editing by Spworld2</big>'''
: * Spworld2 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis)|wanted to get]] the article [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)]] deleted, which at the time was [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis)]], probably because Spworld2 wanted to advance the view of people associated with [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)| EK Samastha]] that [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)| EK Samastha]] is the only and real Samastha.
: * To advance the view of people of EK Samastha in wkivoice, Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1240618322 removed a move request] to rename and move [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (EK faction) and [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP Sunnis)]] to [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)]] and [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)]] respectively.
: * Spworld2, being failed to get the page for [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) deleted, began the attempt to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1239585601 move and rename] the page as [[Samastha (AP faction)|Samastha (AP Faction)]], probably because Spworld2 wanted to remove the full name of the organisation, which is often quoted by reliable sources, so that readers would think the only organisation with the full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama" is that of EK Sunnis. Earlier, Spworld2 tried to remove "Samastha" from the full name ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1233497673 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1233497673 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1233497809 3]) so that readers would think [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) is not officially known by its full name "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama", or as just "Samastha".
: * See also this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1241802928 removal], which was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1241803258 undone] by an admin.
:'''<big>Pages created by Spworld2 </big>'''
: * The pages [[xtools:pages/en.wikipedia.org/Spworld2|created]] by Spworld2 show Spworld2 is closely associated with [[Indian Union Muslim League]] and EK Sunnis (people affiliated to [[EK Samastha]]), which the overwhelming majority of followers of [[EK Samastha]] [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2018/Jan/07/kerala-league-of-factions-1746566.html support]. Spworld2 created the article '''[[100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala]]''' for the '''promotion''' of the future event and [[EK Samastha]]'s claim of the legacy of Samastha founded in 1926. Spworld2 also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=100th_Anniversary_of_Samastha_Kerala&diff=prev&oldid=1240452800 removed] the notability tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=100th_Anniversary_of_Samastha_Kerala&diff=prev&oldid=1235279599 added] by someone else from the article [[100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala]]. Furthermore, Spworld2 created the article '''[[Majlis Al-Noor]],''' which is about a program of EK Sunnis (people affiliated to [[EK Samastha]]). Interestingly, Spworld2 appears to have a close connection (maybe as a leader such as a local leader of any subsidiaries of [[EK Samastha]]) to the subject because Spworld2 has [https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Majlisnoor_in_Arabic.png#mw-jump-to-license uploaded] an image used in [[Majlis Al-Noor]], which might only be uploaded by those who are close to the subject because of copyright. The flag of [[Haritha (Organisation)|Haritha (organisation)]], which is associated with Indian Union Muslim League, has also been [https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Msf_haritha_flag.png#mw-jump-to-license uploaded] by Spworld2; that in turn shows Spworld2's closeness to the group or the faction, such as being a leader of this political party or being close to the leader of a subsidiary of EK Samastha. See Spworld2's complete list of [https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spworld2 uploads]; which in turn shows probably Spworld2 has been to or lives near [[Puthanathani]], a place in [[Malappuram district]], [https://www.onmanorama.com/content/mm/en/kerala/top-news/2024/02/27/iuml-lok-sabha-poll-candidates-declaration-wednesday-malappuram-ponnani.amp.html in the two constituencies of which the Indian Muslim League fielded its candidates] for the [[2024 Indian general election|2024 Lok Sabha election]]. Likewise, Spworld2 created articles on places and institutions in [[Malappuram district]]. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1241811194 edit] by Spworld2 shows, Spworld2 knows [[Malayalam]], though the source does not support Spworld2's claims in the edit. Spworld2 edits are largely on articles related to Kerala politics or politics in which [[Indian Union Muslim League]] has an interest. The other articles Spworld2 created are related to [[Gulf Cooperation Council|GCC]], [[Kerala Gulf diaspora|where a large number of Malayalees work]]. So it is certain that Spworld2 has a close connection to at least the leaders such as the local leaders of the subsidiaries of [[EK Samastha]]. The following is a list of the articles Spworld2 [[xtools:pages/en.wikipedia.org/Spworld2|created]] as of 13:34, 6 September 2024; and those that have association with Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) are shown in bold, and those with EK Sunnis or EK Samastha with an underline:
:**1 [[Palakkad Industrial Smart City]]
:**2 [[Chooralmala]]
:**3 [[Hema Committee report]]
:**4 [[Chelari Airport]]
:**5 [[2024 Kolkata doctor rape and murder case]] · (Deleted) · (Recreated)
:**6 [[2024 Vilangad (Kozhikode) landslide]]
:**7 [[Mundakkai, Wayanad]]
:**8 [[2024 Ankola (Karnataka) landslide]]
:**9 '''[[A. P. Unnikrishnan]]'''
:**10 [[Ashraf (social worker)]]
:**11 '''[[UDSF]]'''
:**12 [[Tahsin Jamshid]]
:**13 [[Muwaileh Commercial]]
:**14 [[Sharjah Industrial area]]
:**15 '''[[Mufeeda Thesni]]'''
:**16 '''[[Najma Thabsheera]] '''
:**17 [[National Center for Meteorology (United Arab Emirates)]]
:**18 [[2024 United Arab Emirates floods]]
:**19 <u>[[Athippatta Moideen Kutty Musliyar]]</u>
:**20 [[Ayisha Abdul Basith]]
:**21 [[Death of Sidharthan]]
:**22 [[Downtown Sharjah]]
:**23 [[Punnathala]]
:**24 [[GVHSS Kalpakanchery]]
:**25 [[Vairankode Bhagavathy Temple]]
:**26 [[Rolla Sharjah]]
:**27 [[Al Heera Beach Sharjah]]
:**28 [[Maleesha Kharwa]] · (Deleted) · (Recreated)
:**29 [[Hamda Taryam Al Shamsi]]
:**30 <u>[[100th Anniversary of Samastha Kerala]]</u>
:**31 '''[[Dalit League]]'''
:**32 [[Salva Marjan]] · (Deleted)
:**33 [[Lotus Lake Wetland Thirunavaya Malappuram]]
:**34 '''[[M. A. Mohammed Jamal]] '''
:**35 [[Amala Shaji]]
:**36 [[Muhammad Riswan]] · (Deleted)
:**37 '''[[Shihab Thangal Hospital]]'''
:**38 '''[[Death of Ariyil Shukoor]]'''
:**39 [[Nava Kerala Sadas]]
:**40 [[Kottakkal Municipality]]
:**41 <u>[[Majlis Al-Noor]]</u>
:**42 [[Chandy Oommen]]
:**43 '''[[Shihab Thangal Charity Trust]] '''
:**44 '''[[Firos (politician)]] '''
:**45 [[Indo-Islamic Cultural Foundation]]
:**46 <u>[[Bafakhy Yatheemkhana]]</u>
:**47 [[Tanur Beach]]
:**48 [[Padinjarekkara Beach]]
:**49 '''[[Haritha (Organisation)]]'''
:**50 '''[[Muslim Women's League]]'''
:**51 [[Aria (Indian singer)]]
:We can see the articles edited by Spworld2 [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Spworld2/0 here]. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 08:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::This source [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2024/Jan/30/message-from-samastha-meet-ominous-for-muslim-league says] most of those affiliated with EK Samastha are members of the IUML: "It is a known fact that most of the Samastha workers are members of the IUML and the party is confident that the issues with Samastha may not have any political fallouts." [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 08:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::So what? S !! All this is created by me, what is the problem??
:::Write more articles on the subject of knowledge, and create related articles when writing an article. What's the problem with that? There is no interest in a '''[[WP:WAR|war]]''' over an article, I don't like arguing a point and writing a lot of essays about it
:::'''Keep it simple''' [[User:Spworld2|Spworld2]] ([[User talk:Spworld2|talk]]) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:<big>Paid editing behaviour by Spworld2</big>
:Earlier, Spworld2 tried to get the article on [[AP Samastha|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(of_AP_Sunnis) disappeared] from Wikipedia. Now also, Spworld2 wants to get that aim fulfilled by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1245981327 proposing the merger, in a comment], ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1240458107 earlier also, Spworld2 had suggested the same merger, in a comment]), of the article [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) with [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (EK faction). This seem like the typical behaviour of a paid editor having made an agreement to get the article on [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) disappeared, through the process such as deletion or merger, in '''whatever way possible''', even at the risk of being '''banned''' or '''blocked''', indefinitely. Alternatively, Spworld2 themself seems to be more interested to further the EK faction's view than being needed to be paid, just like those affiliated with [[EK Samastha]]. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 13:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::I am not affiliated with any organization. I don't write for anyone's money, I write in my free time
::All this is just your wrong feeling, Just your fake propaganda Otherwise only slander ,
::The anger at what the COI told you is telling back to me
::I know about the organizations in Kerala, I know about the political parties, I know about AP Samastha, of which you are the editor . Writing articles under the Kerala Wiki project.
:: When an article is written, its corresponding article is written, all according to policy [[User:Spworld2|Spworld2]] ([[User talk:Spworld2|talk]]) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::'''<big>Lying by Spworld2 besides typical paid editing behaviour</big>'''
::See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(of_AP_Sunnis) nomination] of [[AP Samastha]], which at the time was [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis)]], for deletion by Spworld2. Now, Sporld2 apparently'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1245981327 lies]''' that [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) does not exist, by labelling [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (EK faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (EK faction) as the "existing organization". [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 10:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''<big>Lies and deception by Spworld2 to continue disruptive, bad faith, biased POV pushing</big>'''
:Spworld2, at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Spworld2&diff=prev&oldid=1245993373 8:46 16 September 2024], (see also: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Indian_Union_Muslim_League 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:User_ml-N&pagefrom=Lvf1dipu#mw-pages 2]{{mdash}}in which User:Spworld2 is seen, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Spworld2&oldid=1245993373 3]{{mdash}}how it appears in Spworld2's user page), has '''admitted''' that Spworld2 is a '''supporter of the Indian Union Muslim League''' and that Spworld2 has '''Malayalam as the native language'''. The EK Sunni supporters of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) would likely have more hatred towards the AP faction than the EK Sunnis who do not support the Indian Union Muslim League, since several leaders of the IUML are Mujahids. The biggest enemies of non-Sunnis, in Kerala, including Mujahids, in Kerala, is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, general secretary of [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) and the AP faction Sunnis. But, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Spworld2&diff=prev&oldid=1245993373 just within 5 hours after the admission], Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1246024127 '''lies'''] that Spworld2 is not affiliated with any organisation. It is obvious Spworld2 is blatantly '''lying''', like Spworld2's other '''lies''', such as those seen in Spworld2's edit summaries in [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction), allegations against me, Neutalhappy, and the addition of the false, unsourced content. Spworld2 also '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1246024127 lies]''' that Spworld2 knows about [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction), because Spworld2 does not appear to know the headquarters of [[AP Samastha]], and whether ever Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar became the president or the founding president of any Samastha. Spworld2 also '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241444875 lies]''' that [[AP Samastha]] is known by the term, coined by Spworld2, "'''Samastha (AP Faction)'''". Actually, either Samastha is known as "Samastha", which Spworld2 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1241444875 replaced] with "Samastha (AP Faction)", though there were 5 sources supporting the fact that [[AP Samastha]] is known as "Samastha". Spworld2 engaged in edit warring, disruptive editing, vandalism{{mdash}}([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&diff=prev&oldid=1245662556 1]: grammatical and spelling mistakes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama&diff=prev&oldid=1240450195 2]: removed the boldening of the term "EK Samastha", violating the Wikipedia guideline to bolden it, because Spworld2 hates [[EK Samastha]] to be referred to as "EK Samastha"; in other places Spworld2 removed terms indicating the EK faction, such as "EK faction" altogether),{{mdash}} and bad faith editing (unhelpful editing) on the article [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction). Spworld2 also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1246006582 '''lies'''] that Spworld2 is not interested in edit warring. But, had Spworld2 not interested in edit warring, I would not have reported about Spworld2 on [[WP:ANI]], but just would have undone Spworld2's problematic edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samastha_Kerala_Jem-iyyathul_Ulama_(AP_Sunnis)&action=history The edit history] of [[Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (AP faction)|Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama]] (AP faction) proves the edit war conducted by Spworld2. So, kindly '''TOPIC BAN''' Spworld2 on both Samasthas and the related articles, since it is unavoidable. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 19:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Neutralhappy/sandbox&oldid=1247251232 this]. [[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]] ([[User talk:Neutralhappy|talk]]) 13:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
By my count, Neutralhappy has contributed over 39,000 bytes to this report. That is very much [[WP:TLDR]]. Diffs are important, but everyone here is a volunteer, and most have better things to do than wade through ~40k buytes of [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]], as this issue was already brought up by Spworld2 on [[WP:NPOVN]].
:My only agenda is to make this WP biography about a famous politician more similar to other WP biographies about famous politicians. Noroton's comments at the AfD on [[Bill Ayers election controversy]] describe this group of editors accurately. Such biographies as [[George W. Bush]] (Good Article, 16 conjugations of the word "criticism") and [[Tony Blair]] (loaded with criticism on the day it attained Featured Article status) say a lot about this group of editors and '''their''' single purpose and '''their''' agenda. Trying to keep it civil here but their constant baiting, obstruction and provocation have been repeatedly rewarded, MastCell. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 
From a glance, this seems to mostly be a content dispute, sprikled with [[WP:ABF|assumptions of bad faith]] by Neutralhappy, including in the very title of this section. Neutralhappy, if you want people to read your report, I recommend starting a new subsection, and presenting '''briefly''' the most important parts of your case, including at least 3 but not more than 10 diffs showing the most egregious problems. If it's over 1,000 words, it's likely too long. Be sure to cite the policies each diff violates. Or, better yet, try the steps in [[WP:DR]], including [[WP:3O]] to get uninvolved editors to weigh in and solve the content dispute. If Spworld2 edit wars against two editors, that's a very easy block, and requires very little documentation. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 11:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::He may have a single interest here, but if he's advocating for his side using the talk page and not edit warring, then tough shit. That's the point of this. In fact, he's painted himself into a corner now ,because should he invoke [[WP:BOLD]] and add what he wants to to the page, there's every chance he'll be attacked for edit warring fast. I see no big problem with letting him continue to advocate via our approved and encouraged means, the talk page. As to the incivility, that's a big problem, as are the false accusations. However, the first example above ,where he warns another editor to not get baited and instead pursue the recourses Wikipedia, is fine by me. On hot topic pages, running a game on the new guy is common; one starts something, revs up the new guy, then others swoop in for the block requests and so on. Preventing that isn't bad, it's good and helps level the playing field. Finally ,I note that Workerbee's assessment is correct. there isn't any criticism of Obama anywhere on that page. The closest thing is the National Journal's listing of him as the most liberal senator; given they always call the Democratic candidate the most liberal (fill in the blank), that's hardly a balanced article. No block, warning and incivility probation. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 
*[[User:Neutralhappy|Neutralhappy]], there is no nice way to say this. You have obviously gone through a lot of work pulling this complaint together. But for any sanctions to result from an ANI complaint, the misconduct either a) must be blatantly obvious to any editor or b) have a reasonable amount of compelling evidence presented that a large assortment of uninvolved editors can easily assess and come to conclusions about.
:::Thank you, ThuranX. Thank you very, very much. Zero criticism in a biography about a major party's presumptive nominee? With FA status? For any reasonable person, that alone should be setting off some alarms. Add to it Noroton and his patient documentation of these editors' relentless baiting (ask him, he'll show you). Mother Teresa would blow her cool at some of these people. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:By "reasonable", I'm thinking of 3-10 diffs of bad behavior, not a very long, multi-sectioned narrative. You are not going to find many uninvolved editors (well, except for EducatedRedneck) who are willing to put in the time and effort to assess your complaint here and this is likely to be archived without action being taken. Editors are busy, they don't have the time to devote to all of this when they have other editing activities to do. As I advised another editor (below), cases this complex should be brought to ARBCOM if that is a suitable forum. ANI is just not set up for evaluating this large amount of content and could end up with a BOOMERANG on you. Take this as a lesson learned for the next dispute. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't think you're correct. There's no substantial criticism of [[John McCain]] in his article. Nor do I think any should be added; it's not a [[WP:COATRACK|coatrack]] for the presidential campaign. McCain's article looks quite good to me. No alarm bells. On reading it, I don't get the sense that editors are manipulating McCain's Wikipedia article to reflect the opposing party's talking points. (OK, it does have a crappy "McCain in popular culture" section). A review of the last couple weeks of editing there looks reasonably calm. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=prev&oldid=226880941 Agenda-driven single purpose accounts] are quickly handled. I think something similar can be achieved on the Obama article, though I have to say I view Workerbee74 as much more part of the problem than of the solution based on the issues I've outlined above. Thanks to ThuranX for commenting; again, further ''uninvolved'' commentary is invited. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*Looking through Spworld2's contributions, it seems the user is treating Wikipedia as a gossip column of a tabloid by adding sensational content such as run-of-the-mill issues/verbal spats/allegations under the heading "controversies", disregarding [[WP:CSECTION]] and it's long-term notability. Some of the articles created are also sensational in nature. [[Special:Contributions/117.230.80.72|117.230.80.72]] ([[User talk:117.230.80.72|talk]]) 14:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::MastCell, if you can't find any criticism at [[John McCain]], try running a search on the page using the word "Keating." McCain was completely cleared by a Democrat controlled committee in that investigation but it gets a mention in the article lead, one or two paragraphs in the body of the article and if I recall correctly, until very recently, it had a bold section header. Try to find anything comparable in [[Barack Obama]]. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/WorkerBee74|contribs]]) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*:Admins please '''note''': this is the [[Special:Contributions/117.230.80.72|'''first edit''']] from this IP ( '''117.230.80.72''') , the only IP not active in this discussion, first edit participating in this discussion
::::::I don't want to argue this here, but the [[Keating Five]] were subjects of a massive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. That's a slightly different level of notability than Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, though perhaps only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=216638657 "Obama campaign volunteers"] are able to perceive it. And McCain's article scrupulously notes that he was cleared of all wrongdoing, that the event led to his interest in campaign finance reform (one of his signature issues), and that it has never been an issue in his numerous campaigns since. As the article should. But since you seem to be trying to find an angle of hypocrisy here, I'll agree that if Obama is or has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee or similarly substantive body, then it belongs in his article, maybe even in the lead. Uninvolved editors? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
*:Comment is like an experienced user [[User:Spworld2|Spworld2]] ([[User talk:Spworld2|talk]]) 11:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Two editors unable to participate collaboratively ==
::::::Not so fast, MastCell. I was just getting warmed up. Take a look at [[Hillary Clinton]]. Two sections with bold section headers on "Lewinsky '''''scandal"''''' (where Hillary wasn't even investigated and in fact was a victim) and "Whitewater and other '''''investigations"''''' (where, like McCain, Hillary was exonerated). Then take a look at the October 2004 version of [[George W. Bush]]. Sixteen separate conjugations of the word "criticism." Looks like it was written by Josh Marshall. But you don't want to argue this here because it's mitigating evidence, right? [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
:::::::You are correct insofar as I don't want to argue this here. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
| result = Keystone18 has not edited for a week, and this thread has ceased to progress in a meaningful manner with no consensus developing that either Keystone or EEng's behavior needed addressing at ANI. All editors should, as a matter of helpful and collegial editing make best efforts to use edit summaries and other tools to accurately describe their edits, but they are not required. Thebiguglyalien, if you believe there is still an open issue I'd recommend a more concise report with fewer sections and proposed actions. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 21:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Probably because you were losing the argument in rather spectacular fashion and you knew it was only going to get worse. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
}}
<s>Not sure why mastcell had to put emphasis on uninvolved right after 'thanking' me. If you don't want comments, don't ask for them. fatuous thanks and snide italics? go to hell. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)</s> All due apologies. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I did not mean to dismiss your comments in any way, only to solicit ''more'' uninvolved input in addition to yours, rather than more argumentation from involved parties. I apologize for the misunderstanding. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 
{{u|Keystone18}} recently left a message on the talk page of {{u|EEng}} offering suggestions at [[User talk:EEng#Suggestions about your editing]]. These suggestions were polite, left in good faith, and by and large were good advice.
:Mention the article devoted to this controversy '''briefly in the body of Obama's article''', with a mention of the fact that despite all the "controversy", Obama has nothing in his past to suggest this sort of thing, and has condemned Ayers' past actions. This is a non-issue, but the fact that it is a non-issue can be documented, and should be. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|<span style="font-family: Times">II</span>]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 
EEng responded. Highlights include:
===Involved commentary===
* {{tq|Ironic, isn't it, that they made that mess just 30 minutes before coming here to lecture me.}}
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
* {{tq|No, that's just a delusion you have.}}
|-
* {{tq|Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.}}
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
* {{tq|Yet in article after article you have mindlessly shoved all images to the right, and made them all the default size, turning them into a monotonous stack in which most images are far from their relevant text}}
|-
* {{tq|Again, you don't know what you're talking about}}
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
* {{tq|This is the root of your problem. The idea that all pages must look the same is popular among editors who have no judgment of their own and find comfort in running around imposing their hallucinatory formatting and copywriting "rules" on articles about whose histories they know nothing, and about whose subjects they know nothing.}}
|-
* {{tq|Honestly, how can you possibly think that's OK? Because anything outside your tiny radius of experience is foreign matter that must be expelled? Shoot first, ask questions later? This truly epitomizes your bull-in-a-china-shop editing.}}
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
* {{tq|You're a one-editor wrecking crew.}}
{{Archive top}}
* {{tq|Don't make me laugh.}}
(placing comment here as involved party, to respect MastCell's request)
* {{tq|You think you're some kind of cleanup superhero when you're really an inexperienced, overconfident, careless editor who needs to slow their roll.}}
(ecX2) in respose to ThuranX's commentary, yes, thanks for taking a look. I notice ThuranX is not an admin, and certainly hope "tough shit" is not the official response here. If we can't enforce civility on one of the most important articles on Wikipedia, we're truly a free-for-all. Obama's biography page has plenty of derogatory information - [[Tony Rezko]], [[Jeremiah Wright]], Obama being a closet Muslim, coverage of controversial positions (with which some may or may not agree), turning down public campaign finance, a less than enthusiastic review of his latest book, controversy over race, criticism that he's more of an opportunist than a real reformer as advertised, and something he stirred up in Kenya that seemed to be important over there. Among these are the biggest negative factors for Obama in the current election, things that are discussed in much more detail in various child articles where they belong. Adding derogatory fodder from the blogosphere just because there supposedly is not enough already, as this editor is doing, is an inherently POV step. But we are not here to talk about content. This is behavior. The "approved and encouraged means" do not include edit warring, sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, assuming bad faith, accusing people of lying or of being "Obama fanboys" and "obama campaign volunteers", attacking people as "whiners" for participating in discussions, blaming his misbehavior and others on people supposedly baiting and provoking him, etc. No doubt I'm forgetting a few - the record is very long. The supposed "warning" was coordinating with a sometimes meatpuppet who he has teamed with before to badmouth other editors. He's treating the talk page as a battleground and, in so doing, shutting down productive conversation on that page. True, we should take the edit war off the main page. But if you shut down the talk page with gameplaying and incivility there's no way to make any progress at all on the article. If this editor wanted to contribute by advocating his position the door has always been open to him as much as to anyone else. It would have been easy to do it without being uncivil - the incivility is utterly gratuitous. But after eight or ten AN/I reports, repeated warnings, two or more sockpuppet reports, and four blocks he just isn't getting it. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 
There were legitimate concerns about Keystone18's editing, particularly regarding the introduction of errors, lack of edit summaries, and misuse of minor edits. Understandably, Keystone18 did not respond to EEng's inappropriate comments. All of the comments above were merely in response to the advice; Keystone18 had done nothing to escalate the situation.
:Such a huge logjam of lies, half-truths and distortions. I've never used sockpuppets or meatpuppets; otherwise, this individual would have seen to it that I was blocked for it. I've never called anyone here a "whiner." I'm not required to assume good faith when bad faith, in the form of baiting and provocation (confirmed by observations of a veteran, trusted, well-established, non-SPA editor) is clearly and continuously displayed.
 
Even though Yngvadottir came in with a more reasonable tone, EEng escalated it even further when Keystone18 did not respond:
:I've already paid, in the form of 12 days of blocks, for past behavior. (I don't think that was fair, but nobody can give me those 12 days back so I won't argue the point.) Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at the [[Talk:Barack Obama]] page and tell me what actual grounds this individual '''''currently''''' has for his 10th ANI thread? [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::There you have it - the problem. Apparently I am a liar, baiter, and provoker, and acting in bad faith. Who else is around today to abuse? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters I see.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=227113472&oldid=227111238] Part of the "Obama Whitewash Brigade",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=224191639] an "Obama campaign volunteer",[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=223764998] and who knows what else? Sockpuppeting is likely.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/WorkerBee74&curid=18137864&diff=227101351&oldid=222200323] I didn't file 10 administrative reports - they were filed by 6-8 editors if you include the 3RR, SSP, and RfCUs. One loses track of all the insults and how many people he's insulted. When I devote several hours to a methodical answer of the content question[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama%2Fweight&diff=226898190&oldid=226885726][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226900846] and offer a "firm 'no'" based on my research as a position regarding adding the derogatory content,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227024292&oldid=227023369] he dismisses the position as "baiting and provocation" and - after waging war for more than a month and a half to get the material onto the page(a few represenative edits: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=216638657][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=217400137][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=219555245][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=219736468]) - accuses me of trying to shut the discussion down after 16 hours.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227026158&oldid=227022590] The early post-block behavior is listed in my initial report above, and is ongoing. What tipped this over to an AN/I report for me was WorkerBee74's threat[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226682108] that I "had another thing coming" if I thought the discussion of adding the [[Bill Ayers]] material to the article was resolved, that my objection to his disruption was part of a "disagree/ provoke/ report" tactic (he picked that up from meatpuppeting with [[User:Die4Dixie]] and has been repeating it a lot lately as a taunt), and so on.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=226684429] - but he's done far worse since. There is simply no collaboration possible with this editor. Anything we do gets turned into an uncivil attack.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* {{tq|First look at the ridiculous effect of putting all images to the right and making them all the same size}}
While it is true the WorkerBee74 has primarily edited the Obama talk page rather than the main article, the manner in which he does so is aimed solely at creating conflict and disruption. Nearly every edit he makes violates [[WP:CIVIL]], and he games the system by, for example, proposing a "poll" on edit decisions, then voting with multiple socks. Those edits he does make to article space are essentially uniformly contentious additions of material rejected by other editors; these are sometimes accompanied by talk page comments that he has ''decided his arguments won'' on the talk page (not sure if putting something on the talk page for a contentions and [[WP:BLP]]-violating edit makes it better or worse). We have been through '''so many''' rounds of dealing with the disruption, then having it resume as soon as the latest block is over. I simply don't see that it is possible for discussion on the Obama talk page to function in a cooperative fashion while WorkerBee74 is permitted to edit there, a topic ban is '''long overdue'''. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
* {{tq|but Keystone's too busy to actually look at what they do before rushing off to turn some other article into shit.}}
* {{tq|A few random examples of other destruction they've wrought on various articles}}
* {{tq|As you mentioned, even given their abysmal track record I have, until now, gone through every one of their edits looking for any nugget of a useful change amid all the fecal matter.}}
* {{tq|Complete incompetence.}}
* {{tq|Those friends are close to as incompetent as Keystone is. They've done similar things in other articles -- don't know what words mean, reverse the sense of the text, screw up the formatting, project their naive ideas into articles. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.}}
 
Completely understandably, Keystone18 did not respond. Unsatisfied, EEng left a retaliatory warning on Keystone18's talk page at [[Special:Diff/1245755384]]. I believe that both editors are in the right here in that the other needs to correct their behavior. Both editors have had many chances over many years to do so. To avoid a pointless back and forth, I'm going to skip straight to proposing remedies so we can be done with this. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:If only you had some proof that these "multiple socks" were mine. But true to form, you substitute false accusation for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 01:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:The bile in EEng's response was unnecessary, but I don't agree that the original post was particularly worthwhile or constructive. I don't doubt it was in good faith, but its tone was frankly obnoxious at points: {{xt|hat led you to think that was warranted? [...] Unless I am missing something, don't use it, and try to remove it from the edits you have already made}} isn't rhetorically negated just because they were indeed missing something that they could've made some effort to figure out first. {{xt|It is not your role to add your commentary on the subject in edit notes, or even to issue emphatic edit notes saying what should or should not be done with edits. The site is guided by guidelines that make that unnecessary;}} similarly reads as both presumptive, unhelpful, and simply wrong. I don't think editors are beyond question for their experience or whatever, but some basic self-awareness about things other editors may or may not be privy to is also a factor for civility and constructive collaboration. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 23:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::So it's just about others to have to proof it w/o doubt while you're sitting there, knowing that it will hard if not impossible to do so, yet, my impression is that you somehow don't feel at all really offended by those allegations. I just can speak for myself when I'm saying, I would be extremely offended by such accusations and would do whatever it takes to proof my innocents. You seem to think different. --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk:Floridianed|talk]]) 07:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
*Why does this warrant an ANI post? <sup>Thanks,</sup>[[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|<small>◊distænt write◊</small>]] 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::FE, in fact this constant stream of false accusations is deeply offensive to me, particularly since they're being used as a substitute for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits, and an excuse to dismiss the proposed edit, but what can I do about it? Even if I announce to the Wikipedia world my real name, my home address, my IP address and my place of employment, what good would it do? These people would just find a way to recycle and rationalize their false sockpuppet accusations, and present them anew.
* Several of Keystone18's edits indisputably were a "mess", and the passive-aggressive comments like "Do not project ownership over pages" aren't as conducive to collaboration as the author might imagine them to be. On the other hand, it is easy to see why an editor would disagree with the need for 39 separate comments saying "DO NOT "FIX" DIRECT QUOTES" in one paragraph at [[Statue of John Harvard]]. There might be a need for intervention here, but the talk-page comments aren't why. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
 
=== Keystone18 warned to preview edits ===
:::The alleged sockpuppet activity from IP addresses that could be even remotely linked to me (because we happen to share an ISP) was more than a month ago. Whomever was doing it has (thankfully) not repeated it. All the other alleged sock accounts were proven to be unrelated. If I were to say what I'm thinking, I'd be blocked for a month for incivility. But I am convinced that if Obama wins, and if we're all still editing this article when he retires on January 20, 2017, Wikidemo, SCJ and LotLE (and perhaps even you) will still be pointing fingers at me and shrieking, "Sockpuppet! Sockpuppet!" [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 11:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = No consensus for this particular warning. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 21:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
Keystone18 is warned that they must preview edits before publishing them and to correct any errors they introduce into an article.
 
* '''Support'''. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::The mainspace edits WorkerBee74 ''does'' make are often controversial, non-neutral, and sourced unreliably. Consider, for example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=227121942&oldid=227017449 this edit], made at 2:03am UT this morning, to ''[[Barack Obama]]''. It was such an obvious violation of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]] that (at the risk of committing a [[Wikipedia:Assume bad faith|cardinal sin]]) I am beginning to regard the edit as a deliberate act of antagonism. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 11:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' what is this even. No. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - we already have a template for this, just place [[Template:Uw-preview]] on their talk page.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 15:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
=== Keystone18 subject to edit summary restrictions ===
:::Controversial? Controversy was the lifeblood of [[Tony Blair]] the day it achieved Featured Article status. Sourcing and neutrality challenges? Well, let's discuss it on the Talk page and clean it up if a consensus believes it necessary. As I said at [[Talk:Barack Obama]], since you have Nexis just like me, you can see that I could prove the same thing using five or six unquestionably reliable sources, or use the one source which you claim is unreliable. I think that since all the components of the story check out, it's reliable. What do you think? Let's talk about it. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 13:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Closing ahead of larger close. There is no consensus for the sanctions proposed here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 21:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
Keystone18 is indefinitely subject to a requirement that they use edit summaries in all of their edits. These edit summaries must be sufficient to explain the reason for the edit or the changes made. Keystone18 may not mark any edit as minor. Repeated use of the minor edit function or failure to use an edit summary may be sanctioned with a block until Keystone18 agrees to comply with the restriction. The edit summary and minor edit restrictions can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.
 
* '''Support'''. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::This isn't about any content dispute. This is about ''your conduct''. Your combative nature, inflammatory agenda-based editing, veiled threats, meat puppetry, bad faith and lack of civility toward fellow Wikipedians is what is at issue here. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I have been frequently frustrated by Keystone18's rapid-fire edits without edit summaries. Requiring edit summaries will not only make their edits easier to understand - it will force them to slow down and think about the edits. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - we have a template for this as well, [[Template:Uw-editsummary2]]. And edit summaries are not required anyway, but they are best practice.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 15:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I know it's an usual step to take, but this is an unusual case. Keystone has made over 100,000 edits in the past 2.5 years: 45k in 2022, 39k in 2023, over 31k so far this year [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/enwiki/Keystone18]. Only half of those edits have edit summaries--that's 55k+ edits with no summaries [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/editsummary/en.wikipedia.org/Keystone18]. They are going too fast and making too many edits, and the lack of edit summaries is likely because edit summaries would slow them down. They made 1,620 edits to [[Allentown, Pennsylvania]]; 1,342 edits to [[Lehigh Valley]]. What possible reason could there be for any editor to make ''more than a thousand edits to one article''? And look at the edits, e.g. to Allentown, PA: [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Keystone18&page=Allentown%2C_Pennsylvania&server=enwiki&max=]. Even when edit summaries are used, they're canned, like "further" and "minor copyediting." This sort of behavior absolutely blows up article histories--and floods watchlists. Requiring ''descriptive'' edit summaries would both solve the lack-of-edit-summary problem, and, I think, solve the too-many-edits problem. [[WP:HIGHSCORE]] editing is disruptive. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*:PS: 930 edits to talk pages. 110,000 edits to mainspace, less than 1,000 to talk space. Kinda tells you all you need to know right there. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I agree with Levivich. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 03:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose.''' I can appreciate the sentiments motivating this proposal, but this is a very clumsy and impractical way to try to reduce the disruption associated with this editor's approach. Indeed, I'm concerned it would exacerbate issues and become its own time sink, if anything. What happens when Keystone's summaries are inevitably found to be too brief, flippant, or just unclear? We're back here with another couple hundred thousand bytes of text being wasted on a new argument for the next sanction. Beyond that, it's just not practical to create a unique framework of editorial rules for an editor over and above what others are formally required to adhere to. If appropriate, make a proposal to TBAN them from particular areas or processes that they tend to disrupt, or propose a block altogether. These kinds of cobbled-together, hand-holding/guardrail sanctions pretty much never solve anything except to postpone any actual solution the issues. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 05:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I have turned, and I continue to turn, my face from sanctioning editors for things that are not yet sanctionable. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 21:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
=== EEng subject to a civility restriction ===
::::::I notice that Wikidemo has yet again used ANI to attack me personally as disruptive without anyoone calling him on it. When I go before the ARB. commitee with his history and differentials, I will prevail. Please close this as yet again another meritless ANI by an editor whose BEHAVIOUR is problematic.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = If this is ever going to pass, this isn't the scenario. Let's not spend more time and bytes on this. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
EEng is subject to an indefinite civility restriction. If they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then they may be blocked for a short time up to one week, and up to an indefinite duration for repeat offenses. Blocks resulting from this restriction can only be appealed to the blocking administrator or the community, where community consensus takes precedence. The civility restriction can be appealed to the community after one year since the restriction was imposed or the last enforcement action (whichever is later), and each year thereafter.
 
* '''Support'''. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 23:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
To Admins: '''Please note''' that in this very ANI report, the same IP range that was previously identified as a sockpuppet of WorkerBee74 is used to defend WB (while claiming to be third party comment). Moreover, just above, Die4Dixie seems to be claiming that this ANI is against him/her, which suggests to me that this is another example when WB forgot which login s/he was posting under. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Please don't waste everyone's time with this. An editor made "suggestions" at his talk page. And they weren't as fully perfect as you make them out to be, in your description at the beginning of this ANI thread. No one is obligated to accept those suggestions. A disagreement at a user's talk page is unlikely to require ANI and proposals for community sanctions. If there are problems in article space or article talk space, come back again, I guess. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
*I think EEng's civility may merit discussion at this board. His comments are, if memory serves, frequently sarcastic and vitriolic. I don't think this is the right way to begin that discussion, though. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this entire thread. Disclosure: I'm pretty sure I once voted for EEng to be indefinitely blocked, but nothing here warrants that, and these kinds of civility restrictions aren't enforceable. It's all or nothing. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per Tryptofish. This entire thread should be closed. [[User:JoJo Anthrax|JoJo Anthrax]] ([[User talk:JoJo Anthrax|talk]]) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
===Problems with Keystone18's editing===
:To Admins: '''Please note''' that LotLE is making false accusations.
{{User|Keystone18}} has been extensively rewriting articles. Partly this is because they evidently have firm preferences as to article layout; see their talk page and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEng&diff=prev&oldid=1244897806 the note they dropped on EEng's talk page] after, it seems, a series of conflicts on articles on EEng's watchlist. But they have been leaving some of these articles badly broken: for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)&oldid=1244891717 this version] of [[Memorial Hall (Harvard University)]] with formatting symbols and part of a caption left hanging in the text, article text incorporated into the quotebox, and a set of 4 images repeated. In good faith, I have tried to come up with an explanation for why an experienced editor—and member of the Guild of Copyeditors—would leave an article in such a degraded state. EEng has mined their edits for improvements that can be reinstated. But they appear oblivious. And their collegiality leaves a lot to be desired. Most of these edits have been marked minor and have no edit summaries, both of which are hallmarks of editors seeking to avoid scrutiny; they have declined to discuss their changes on article talk pages; after starting the section on EEng's talk page, they did not respond to frequent pings as I and EEng discussed their own editing; and when EEng went to their talk page, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keystone18&diff=prev&oldid=1245756053 deleted the section in favor of discussing on EEng's talk] then returned with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEng&diff=prev&oldid=1245757259 a response] that accused EEng of "shifting blame" and characterized their "suggestions" (their quotation marks) as descriptions of problems that EEng must fix. Having opened themself up to examination of their edits by making unfriendly suggestions about EEng's style, Keystone18 is now refusing to discuss and instead attacking. They've revealed themself to be a problem editor. I don't know whether this is a recent development. I don't know whether they're going through a bad patch, working on a small-screened device, or simply overcome by loathing when they come across articles with a large number of images as well as a quote box. I don't know how many of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Harvard_University&diff=prev&oldid=1245610343 the problems I found in the wording] at [[History of Harvard University]] after a flurry of edits by Keystone18 and others, and even after some fixes by EEng, are down to Keystone18 not fully understanding, and how many were someone else's disimprovements. But they've been requiring quite a bit of clean-up after them, only a small portion of which can be attributed to legitimate disagreement over how articles should look on the page. So since we're here, Keystone18's behavior should be examined, including both their article work and their interactional style. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 02:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*I too am very concerned about Keystone18's recent editing behavior. We need explanations. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*I had two very negative interactions with Keystone18 over [[User talk:Keystone18#Image sizes|image sizes]] and [[User talk:Keystone18#Commons category location|Commons category location]] in 2023. In both cases, they were making formatting changes that I feel made no sense, and their talk page replies were very strange interpretations of guidelines/policy. I don't think this problematic editing is a recent development; it's just another chapter of Keystone18 refusing to work nicely with other editors. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 03:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*The pattern of dozens of small edits per page, with a high error rate, has gone on for some time. Another recent article edited, [[David Starr Jordan]] ([[Special:Diff/1240974219/1243320410|this diff]] has all Keystone's edits with only one minor interleaving edit), has similar issues: there are now two separate sections titled "Personal life", and typos appear more than they are corrected (for example {{tq|In 1875, while in [[Indianapolis]], Jordan obtained a [[Doctor of Medicine]] degree from [[Indiana_University_School_of_Medicine#Earlier_schools|Indiana Medical College]] in 1875.}} or {{tq|Indiana President President [[Michael McRobbie]]}}. This is an editor who needs to be more careful in their editing. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 03:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:: After reading through many more of Keystone18's edits, beyond the image-layout concerns and the pattern of a large number of small edits per article (with a high error-rate and minimal communication), the main thing I noticed was idiosyncratic views about how places are referred to. For example, changing <nowiki>"[[Brooklyn]], [[New York (state)|New York]]" to "[[Brooklyn]], New York City, U.S."</nowiki> in infoboxes. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 04:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::: If Keystone18 is going to leave the "edit summary reminder" option on and will attempt to minimize fast minor edits, I don't think any other action is required at this time. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*Three hours ago I was in the process of asking {{U|Tryptofish}} to have a quiet word with Keystone to help them see the light. But then thebiguglyalien took it upon himself to stir the shit-pot, and here we are.{{pb}}I've had to clean up so many of Keystone's messes that I can't remember them all, but here are talk-page threads I opened on four articles, listing the problems Keystone introduced (some of them, anyway -- no way to find them all since their diffs are often so scattershot you can't tell what they do e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1243349534#Terms_and_cost_of_gift]):
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1244529606#Recent_changes]
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1244118292#Recent_edits]
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1245457398#Recent_changes]
:*[https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1244548243#Recent_changes]
:Keystone never responded to any of those threads, instead typically returning to whichever article and attempting to edit-war their changes back in -- their signature move being shoving all image to the right and making them all the same size, no matter how bizarre the results (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1190945552#Death_of_Harry_Widener] -- and scroll to the bottom to see how Keystone also somehow managed to paste 1/3 of the article into a footnote, images and all). [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hello. This ended up here after I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEng#Suggestions_about_your_editing offered several suggestions/questions to EEng] a few days ago on some of Eeng's editing trends. Two editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keystone18#Widener_Library thanked me for my edits] while also warning of EEng's aggressive guardianship of these pages. As one editor wrote: '''"Thanks to both of you for your hard work on the Harvard articles and attempts, though sometimes futile, to make them better. I see you both have encountered "the steward." I encountered them months ago on History and traditions of Harvard commencements. Finally made some progress but it took weeks. There are a handful of Harvard articles (it sort of seems like a random list) that they watch like a hawk, and any change they don't agree with, however minor, will almost invariably be walked backed. It leads to articles that, I agree with you, are formatted and written in a very bizarre and unconventional way, and certainly not an encyclopedic one."''' That was followed by EEng's very volatile responses, which I first saw today. At no point have I refused to collaborate with him on the article. Just the opposite. Collaboration was one of my suggestions in my short post to his page. I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions; his addition of personal commentary on the article's subject, which he adds as edit notes in text, which is confusing and sometimes presents spacing and editing problems; his routine use of the "shy" function to words, which I have not before seen and which makes page editing very difficult and also adds to spacing issues; his placement of images in various sizes all over the page (on the left, in the center, and on the right); my suggestion that he not project ownership (what he calls "guardianship)" over pages; and my suggestion that he work collaboratively with other editors.
::The editing of these articles, including my bracket and other error, was complicated by these unusual formatting tactics, but let me focus on my own takeaways for improvement: 1.) I should use the preview option consistently; I likely would have caught the bracket error if I had; 2.) Cease editing on a small device as I have the past few weeks, which was likely part of the cause of the bracket error; in fact, I discovered another similar bracket error today in the Harvard template box, which I corrected and I believe was of my making recently; and 3.) Use much greater discretion (if used at all) with the minor edit option. [[User:Keystone18|Keystone18]] ([[User talk:Keystone18|talk]]) 04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Keystone18}}, your explanation is inadequate. I have made about 100,000 smartphone edits without ever blaming a "small device" for my errors, which I do my best to correct promptly. I became a highly active administator on my phone and have written [[WP:GA|Good articles]] on my phone. Your editing is being discussed because you offered a harsh assessment of another editor's work and other editors took a look at your own work and discovered major problems. Please offer a more detailed response to the criticisms of your editing and a more robust assurance that the problems will not crop up again. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::::When Keystone posted on my talk page five days ago, that was the first time they had given even the slightest ''hint'' of acknowledgment of my existence -- after ignoring for a week (as they continue to ignore) the several article discussion threads I'd opened (linked at the four bullets above) and my dozens of detailed edit summaries (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Widener+Library&date-range-to=2024-09-06&action=history]) explaining why I was forced to revert essentially every edit they'd made to numerous articles. What I'd like you, {{U|Cullen328}}, to get from Keystone is how they justify that behavior, for which editing on a phone is also not an excuse. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::1. No excuse for editing errors ever. My primary corrective step is to systematically begin using the preview function; 2. No excuse to mark an edit minor if it isn't, or might even be viewed that way. I am going to use great discretion with it; and 3. In the coming weeks, I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns. [[User:Keystone18|Keystone18]] ([[User talk:Keystone18|talk]]) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Regarding the minor edits, that sounds good. Most people won't complain about a minor edit popping up in their and watchlist, and if they do just link this thread. The "minor" checkbox isn't even available on some interfaces right now.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#How_to_mark_Minor_Edit_on_Source_Editor_of_Mobile_website] Watch out if you use a lot of scripts because some (like [[User:Mesidast/Tidy citations.js]]) have a "minor" setting that checks the box when they run. Also, if you want a reminder for edit summaries, you can tick the box at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing Preferences &rarr; Editing &rarr; Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)] [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 06:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks very much. I activated that prompt option, which is a helpful reminder. [[User:Keystone18|Keystone18]] ([[User talk:Keystone18|talk]]) 07:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Keystone18|Keystone18]]: He is being a "guardian" as he calls it because you have made hundreds or thousands of worthless pointless edits that are constantly filled with errors. (Not on just that page, but all over.) It doesn't have anything to do with the equipment you're using, and it's not a stray bracket here and there. EEng was probably wrong to be as sarcastic and harsh as he was, but behind his nasty tone he absolutely was telling the truth about the constant terrible quality of your editing. [[User:TooManyFingers|TooManyFingers]] ([[User talk:TooManyFingers|talk]]) 05:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}}{{U|Keystone18}}, in your first response above, you wrote: {{tq|I also asked about his consistent use of unattributed quotes, including in article ledes and as primary captions}}. Hmm? What do you mean? Could you link to a diff where you fix an unattributed quotation in an article that EEng has worked on? And I don't see a single mention of quotes in your post to EEng's talk page. The specifics are about [[:template:shy|shy]] and image placement. The only person I currently see on that talk page (EEng's done some archiving there recently) mentioning quotes lacking sources is {{U|Jjazz76}} back in May, who states that EEng {{tq|has ridiculed me for asking for sources for quotes}}. I lack the context for that statement, and I note that the previous August, EEng was referring to someone objecting to there being citations in the introduction at [[:Phineas Gage]]—which were needed to reference quotations. So that's the opposite way around. Can you fill us in on what you were referring to, since you apparently intended to mention it to EEng but didn't? [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:For the record, the "context for that statement" you're looking for is this discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1225688904#Financially_Independent??], in which an editor insisted that his original research into Harvard's tax returns overrides multiple reliable sources from which I had directly quoted. That editor made themself look ridiculous all by themselves, no help from me needed.{{pb}}If you will allow me, {{U|Yngvadottir}}, to redirect the focus however, I have asked Keystone several times now to explain why they refused to discuss their edits at the talk-page threads I opened on several articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1244529606#Recent_changes][https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1244118292#Recent_edits][https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1245457398#Recent_changes][https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1244548243#Recent_changes]. That's the heart of this whole issue. Keystone's overestimation of their own skill wouldn't matter if they had been willing to discuss and ''learn'', but they're not -- though they do put on a good show of it here at ANI. ("I will attempt to reach out to the handful of editors who posted here and attempt to forge consensus and resolve any legitimate lingering concerns" sounds like AI-generated bullshit, BTW.) So once again, {{U|Keystone18}}: what's your explanation for simply ignoring those discussions for up to ten days, while you kept doing the same mistaken things to those and other articles? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 11:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::Nothing complicated, EEng. I was not on from about September 10 until yesterday, and you reverted the edits anyway. If I revisit any of these pages, though, I'll be sure to raise my suggestions with you on the respective article talk page first. [[User:Keystone18|Keystone18]] ([[User talk:Keystone18|talk]]) 12:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, content/editorial disputes about specific articles should be discussed on the article talkpages. EEng says they opened discussions on the article talkpages which you didn't contribute to. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 12:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{U|Keystone18}}, either you think we're all dumb, or this is getting to be a [[WP:CIR]] case.
:::*The four discussions were opened on September 4, 7, 7, and 12. Between September 4 and 9 you made almost 1000 edits, ''including to some of those four articles'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Keystone18&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=2024-09-15&limit=1100], but ignored the discussions completely. You also ignored my extensive, careful edit summaries [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Widener+Library&date-range-to=2024-09-06&action=history] reverting your edits; instead you just went back and started editwarring your changes in again.
:::*On September 9 you left your message on my talk page, outlining your ideas about editing and article formatting, which might charitably be labeled idiosyncratic. As soon as Yngvadottir responded to you, that evening, pointing out the many ways you'd been messing up article after article, you suddenly stopped editing.
:::Now, once again: explain your complete failure to discuss. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Hi, EEng, by the time I saw your edit comments on the [[Widener Library]] and [[Memorial Hall (Harvard University)]] pages, you had already reverted my edits. I also did not respond to the very complimentary comments I received on my page about those very same edits from one of two different editors [[User talk:Keystone18#Widener Library]], who praised my edits. Nor did I sign on for four or so days because, frankly, I wasn't feeling well. And nor did (or do) I really have the inclination to revisit these two pages as an active editor because I sense you do not have much interest in collaborative editing on them. I will, however, be sure to read them.
:::::If I am wrong about that, however, and you want my response to your page comments, I am very willing to address them. You appear to have systematically reverted editors with similar concerns, however. My focus, here, is in not being defensive, but focusing on constructive steps that I can take that make sense and will likely eliminate errors and improve my contributions, including: 1.) I am going to begin using the preview option routinely; 2.) I am going to minimize greatly or entirely the use of the minor edit function; and 3.) I am going to reach out in the coming weeks to those who commented here. [[User:Keystone18|Keystone18]] ([[User talk:Keystone18|talk]]) 17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::You're either lying or we really are in a [[WP:Competence is required]] situation.
::::::*Here's the history of Widener Library [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Widener+Library&date-range-to=2024-09-11&action=history].
::::::*As seen in that history, on September 4 you made a long series of edits that completely screwed up the article. That same day I reverted step by step, with an edit summary at each step explaining why your edits were destructive, and opened a talk page thread further explaining [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1244118292#Recent_edits].
::::::*As noted so many times, you just ignored all that. But nonetheless, on September 7 you returned to the article and started trying to editwar your changes in again.
::::::*Meanwhile, you kept moving on to other articles making the same mistakes, I kept opening talk page threads explaining why what you're doing is destructive, and you kept ignoring it all and wrecking more articles; as with Widener Library, in some cases you returned to the ''same articles'' after being reverted, and tried to editwar your changes in again.
::::::I repeat: you're either lying, or we're in a CIR situation, given that you're unable to recall or reconstruct your own actions sufficiently to answer for them. When that happens with a criminal defendant, they put you in a mental hospital until you regain sufficient competency to stand trial; in your case, the comparable action would be a block until you demonstrate that you can engage in basic ways with other editors, and take responsibility for your actions instead continuing this dazed-and-confused act.
::::::But I didn't open this thread -- another editor made the decision to waste a huge amount of editor time by opening this thread when the matter was already being addressed with you privately. Right now other editors are deciding your immediate fate (above) but whatever happens this time, the moment you show signs of repeating your destructive behavior I'm going to move to have you blocked. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 05:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC). P.S. The praise you received is from editors with error rates similar to yours e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1225688904#Financially_Independent??]. It's like a mutual-support network for mess-makers . I wouldn't crow about it if I were you.
:::::::{{U|Keystone18}} appears to have been led astray by their friends. What I'm seeing is a failure to pay attention to objections to their edits (including failure to read the edit summaries on reverts, failure to discuss after being reverted, and simply ignoring pings; instead they edit war by simply reinstating their changes). In addition to a failure to be responsible for their own work: we all forget to preview occasionally, but leaving article after article broken is sloppiness that outweighs any improvements within the edits. Edit summaries are not mandatory, but they are expected, and communication is required. I looked for previous mentions of the lack of edit summaries on their talk page, and found only one ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keystone18/Archive_1 October 2, 2022]). I found numerous editors querying their over-use of the "minor" flag, some of them templated, others not ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keystone18/Archive_1 February 19, 2022; May 11, 2022; October 12, 2022] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keystone18/Archive January 2, 2023]). I was not impressed by their responses on either issue; they seemed to me to quibble over definitions rather than understanding that their usage was anomalous and not very collegial. For someone with such a pattern of unresponsiveness to go to another editor's talk page and "suggest" they edit collaboratively is galling. I'm sorry you have been ill, Keystone18, and I hope you are now feeling much better. But I for one don't want you to "reach out" to me personally. The community ''expects'' editors to be responsive and collegial and to consider the possibility they are wrong, or out of step with community norms. In addition to ''expecting'' editors to take reasonable care they are not leaving an article a mess. {{pb}}Also, while I appreciate {{U|EEng}}'s desire for focus, I believe you owe him an apology not only for misrepresenting the timeline of your edits, but also for the serious accusation you threw in when you finally responded, here on a noticeboard, that he habitually includes unattributed quotations. In addition to the untruth about your having raised this with EEng in your post on his talk page, you have failed to offer any support for that statement. So far as I can see there is none. The only source for it that I have been able to discern is your friend's statement on your talk page that EEng demands sources for quotes. Is it possible that you jumped to an insulting conclusion about EEng's editing from a misinterpretation of your friend's statement? Or have I missed where you got that from; perhaps it wasn't on-wiki? In any case, it's quite an insult to EEng's editing, and I'm calling you on it. {{pb}}For anyone who wonders why I haven't opined in the sections above: Voting on remedies prior to exploration of the problem is putting the cart before the horse. I'd like to keep the emphasis on what's expected of editors, in hopes of Keystone18 understanding. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 11:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::<small>It's funny, {{U|Yngvadottir}}... every time you ask {{U|Keystone18}} to account for themselves, their [[WP:ANIFLU]] flares up. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 13:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)</small>
::::::::{{U|Keystone18}}, you seem to think that by going dark long enough you're going to escape scrutiny for your behavior. Think again. It may well be that this thread ends up closed without action, but as mentioned before, the moment your bad behavior shows any sign of returning you're likely to get blocked. And the threshold for such action will be far lower if you continue thumbing your nose at the community's concerns here in this thread, as you're doing now. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 04:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
 
===Subsection on how this thread began===
:Again.
I don't frequent ANI too much because I'm not here for drama and conflict. I think frankly some editors need to remember what we're here for. This whole thread is largely a waste of time. On the substance, all editors should use edit summaries and avoid multiple small edits in quick succession. I edit exclusively on mobile and that's not an excuse for poor editing. Finally, I've noticed twice recently the editor who began this thread insert themselves into disputes they had no involvement in. Why? [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 12:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
*I'm surprised trout haven't been distributed yet <sup>Thanks,</sup>[[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|<small>◊distænt write◊</small>]] 13:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
*For the record, this thread began because our colleague thebiguglyalien and a few others have made it their mission to get my name on the ANI marquee as frequently as possible, in order to reinforce the "I've seen his name at ANI so often, he must be doing ''something'' wrong" effect. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1237672456#ANI_woes]. It's so transparent it's laughable. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
===Time to close===
:Wikidemo mentioned Die4Dixie by name in this edit right here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=227116613&oldid=227116226] See that? The accusation about "forgot which login s/he was posting under" is false. The editor, Die4Dixie, has every right to say that Wikidemo "has yet again used another ANI to attack [him] personally." Furthermore, regarding the claim that "the IP range .... was previously identified as a sockpuppet of WorkerBee74," I will point out again that "reported as a sock" is very different from "proven as a sock" and the Checkuser says we're unrelated. This is exactly the kind of behavior I have described as baiting, provocation and false accusations. Why do we (Die4Dixie and I) have to put up with this? How many false accusations (involving alleged offenses which, if true, would merit a lengthy block) is LotLE allowed to make before he merits a lengthy block of his own? [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 20:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been a week since Keystone last edited, which is unfortunate. But at this point there's no action to be taken -- and I want to remind everyone that it's wasn't I who opened this thread -- so I think it's time for a close. A big shout-out to civility cop {{U|thebiguglyalien}}, whose shit-stirring in opening this thread led to the pile-on which may very well have caused Keystone18 to leave the project forever. Way to go! [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Overzealous blocking by Graham87 ==
::I personally have no particular reason to think Die4Dixie and WorkerBee74 are the same editor, but they've clearly been meatpuppeting on the Obama pages and to blow smoke on AN/I, something relevant to WorkerBee74's behavior. Die4Dixie has been another source of disruption and incivility on the Obama pages, more over-the-top than WorkerBee74 (e.g. edit warring to remove mention that the various urban rumors about Obama's religion and upbringing were in fact false, filing two complaints about my user name and repeatedly calling me a liar as retribution for a civility caution) but fortunately not as active an editor. He coined the concept of "disagree / provoke / report" as a way of blaming misbehavior on the person objecting to it rather than the misbehaving editor[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227219114] and WorkerBee74 has taken it up. They both blame me personally for raising my concerns on AN/I (Die4Dixie calls it "whining", WorkerBee74 uses a number of different invectives; they both accuse me of lying) and try to paint my participation on AN/I reports as solitary misbehavior on my part - in fact, the reports have been brought and pursued by many different editors, and have often resulted in blocks and serious talk of finally topic-banning some of these editors. That's what AN/I is for, and we shouldn't be distracted when the problematic SPA editors make reflexive copycat accusations against serious Wikipedians. I should not have to be the target of this kind of abuse for bringing an AN/I report. I'll keep a stiff upper lip about it, but when considering these editors' viability on the project we should note their tendency to treat everything as a [[WP:BATTLE]]. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
:::The only one's behavior here that resembles a battle is that of you.An essay that is not a policy comes to mind:[[WP:DOUCHE|WP:DOUCHE]] After your wikistalking behavior on my talk page, and repeated personal (and tiresome) attacks, I am preparing my own report. The accusation that he and I are "meatpuppeting" is asinine. I see again that this users BEHAVIOR would indicate that he believes that any time he files a ANI it gives him unlimited license to say whatever he likes about anyone. His mucking up of my talk page with his psuedo officious warnings and passive aggressive threats of perma-banning( which he has not the personal authority to implement). His previous reports on me were closed due to a lack of merit while he was warned by a number of editors that his behavior was inappropriate related to me and my talkpage . I will return and add the appropriate difs. when I have time.If he believes that we are socks or meat puppets, then he should make the accusation in the appropriate forum and stop slinging hoping that with enough shit slung, something will stick to the people with whom he disagrees. This editor's behavior is a loose canon on Wikipedia, and the project needs to be protected from his abusive use of the ANI process to settle his vendettas--[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
| result = Block has been lifted, admin understands why it was criticized. No further action needed. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 21:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Yikes! [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
}}
:::::Touche'. Btw , an editor keeps trying to archive this. I think it needs to play out and have some closure. I wont revert him again, but I feel an admin. needs to address your and my concerns, rather than an arbitrary editor from some sideline[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 02:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It only makes you look worse, why don't you step away from the drama and archive it yourself? And also, an admin is not needed to prevent further garbage appearing on this page. Take it to a talk page, drink a cup of tea, go outside, anything not to continue on your path of hatred. If you are preparing a report, do so, don't drag it out on this page. I feel bad for you. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 02:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you feel badly, but your assessment of the situation is your own personal opinion, to which you are entitled.Now if you can truly archive this page, then do so;if not, then we deserve to have closure and I recommend that if you find the reading of this so distressing, that you read something else. It's a big project.I say that with the nicest and kindest of intentions.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 02:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::Ok, truly archived. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 02:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}
<!-- [[Template:hab]] -->|}
 
{{User|Graham87}} initially blocked {{User|Rager7}} for Manual of Style violations. Half a year later, he very reluctantly unblocked them. Regarding Rager7's appeal, Graham87 didn't like {{tq|the whole ... vibe of it.}} (ellipsis in original). He added: {{tq|Your main problem was editing sprees on random articles; don't do those this time and things should be all good.}}
===Article probation===
The several previous ANI discussions about editorial conduct on the Obama page clearly do not resonate enough, and problems have still not ceased. I think we as a community have had enough of this drama. I propose the following restriction be enacted:
 
A few days ago Graham87 blocked Rager7 again, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARager7&diff=1245190028&oldid=1245131066 "three strikes"]:
The [[Obama]] related-pages (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Obama pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at [[Obama/Community_sanction#Log]].
# "Strike one" was creating a redirect from [[Failed Austrian Painter]] to [[Adolf Hitler]]. By all accounts, this was done in good faith. The redirect is [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_11#Failed_Austrian_Painter|currently at RfD]] and will likely be deleted, but at least one editor (not me) is actually in favour of keeping it, so it's not so obviously and blatantly wrong as to warrant a block.
# "Strike two" was Rager7 sending Graham87 a Discord friend request. There is no reason to believe this was not done in good faith, yet Graham87 describes this as {{tq|technically [[WP:HAR|harassment]]}} and considers it a "strike".
# "Strike three" was a comment Rager7 left at the RfD, where they said they were {{tq|testing the waters of which edits makes sense or not}}. Apparently Graham87 took umbrage at this; he considers it unacceptable for an inexperienced editor to be "testing the waters". Which is ridiculous – how else are they supposed to learn? This was a single redirect that Rager7 created. Hardly disruptive.
 
When I inquired about the block at the RfD, Graham87 said {{tq|It's ... a vibe thing.}} (ellipsis in original). Apparently he really dislikes Rager7's vibe, but blocking based on vibes is unacceptable.
Need community consensus to impose this. If it needs any tweaking, let me know. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
All of Rager7's edits outside this redirect seem to be productive and unobjectionable. The "editing sprees" never happened again, as far as I can tell. I therefore consider the block unjustified. I asked Graham87 to unblock Rager7, but he refused. I was going to bring this to [[Wikipedia:Administrative action review|Administrative action review]], but then I looked into the archives there and noticed [[Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review/Archive_2#Permanent_ban_of_Hocikre|a previous discussion]] where Graham87 had blocked two people including Rager7. There was overwhelming consensus to undo both blocks. Evidently there is a pattern of overzealous blocking, which is why I am bringing this to ANI. [[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 08:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:The terms and conditions of article probation are already in effect. Admins Gamaliel and Rick Block are participating on a regular basis now; they're "involved" but they can call for other admins very quickly. What we have here, NMCV, is a group of editors who have developed marvelous expertise in what Die4Dixie accurately describes as "disagree/ provoke/ report" and what ThuranX described as one editor "revving up" the newbie so that others can report him. They engage in a constant stream of low-level provocation and baiting. False accusations are being used as substitute for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. Every trick and stratagem in the book is being used to block anything negative about Obama, and get rid of any editor who seeks to introduce it.
:Yes, I'd say this summary is generally accurate. It's like ... if that's what they were going to do to "thest the waters" (create a redirect to a highly controversial subject area), I'd prefer not to find out what they'd do next. I'd been checking their edits daily after unblocking them in case of any trouble ( and apart from what's been discussed above, there was [[Special:Diff/1243495499|this addition of a really bad ref to an already-referenced statement]] (which I [[User talk:Rager7#Adding extra refs|discussed with the user here]] ... I find that incident kinda weird but could maybe assume good faith about it. If we need to supervise Wikipedians like that, they're wasting our time and we just don't have the resources to deal with that. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 08:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::I agree with your Strike 3 (uw-vandalism templates tell people to use sandboxes for testing, waters or not, so, by our own admission on a largely used template, they’re messing up) but your Strike 2 feels like you [[WP:SPIDERMAN|climbed the Reichstag, when you’d only been told not to climb something, but were yet to be given reasons.]] You know… <sub>Oh what’s the words…</sub> Jumped the gun! That ain’t much to go off of, for a harassment case. Is there any missing context, to class the friend request on the [[List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#Recurring|draconequus’ namealike]] <sub>(This one’s for you, bronies and pegasisters)</sub> as harassment?
::{{line break}}
::{{tq|If we need to supervise Wikipedians like that, they're wasting our time and we just don't have the resources to deal with that.}} I don’t know about anyone else, but I see this as backed by [[WP:ROPE]]. Mentor program, if you really need to supervise. Other than that, they need to be able to [[Lego 2K Drive|be awesome]] enough, on their own two feet. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You can't create a redirect in a sandbox. Well, you can, to learn how it works, but the technical aspects of creating a redirect are not the alleged problem, but the appropriateness of this particular redirect. This being a "strike" implies people should not be allowed to make an edit unless they are completely certain that it will be completely uncontroversial. That is not a reasonable standard. [[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 19:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:Not stating an opinion about the block itself, but I don't think this is the right forum for the redress of administrative actions. This should be discussed at [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:XRV]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::Taking a brief look at what I've seen so far, I've never heard of the three-strike system being included as part of our policy, and I don't believe that should be enforced (as it feels like a case of [[WP:NOPUNISH]]) when a user commits three different mistakes, that in which a user that's been here for over a year ''can'' learn from. As Graham unblocked them, I would've assumed that Graham would trust Rager that educating them about why their actions are disruptive rather than blocking would be the better decision going forward. I think Graham should know more about Rager first, and particularly so for any established users, before blocking such users indefinitely, because indefinite is indeed the last straw. [[User:Abminor|A<sup>♭</sup>m]] <sup>([[User talk:Abminor|Ring!]])</sup> <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Abminor|Notes]])</sub> 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I indeed didn't base the three-strikes concept on any policy. It was more a confluence of bad things. I also think it's worth mentioning that this user [[Special:Diff/1192114588|used "are" to describe something that happened in 1998]], which points to an extreme [[WP:COMPETENCE|competence]] problem. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 12:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::And that's one example of a mistake that users ''can'' learn from. If they used "are" on something done in 1998, that's more likely to be an accident than done on purpose; and you could've just simply reminded them that they should've used "were" instead, along with the past tense. For some users, English isn't their first language, but if they're also ones that are willing to learn from their previous mistakes, sometimes a little reminder is best so that they can be at least assured they won't repeat (or minimise) the same mistakes again. [[User:Abminor|A<sup>♭</sup>m]] <sup>([[User talk:Abminor|Ring!]])</sup> <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Abminor|Notes]])</sub> 12:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Except they haven't always learnt from their mistakes, like [[Special:Diff/1192139376|adding a contraction]] despite [[Special:Diff/1188963308|being warned against doing so]]. If English is their second language, they shouldn't really be copyediting or should be extremely cautious when doing so. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 13:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::I noted why I thought ANI was more appropriate than XRV, namely that they've already been at XRV for the same thing before and I felt that this was a pattern of behaviour which needed to be addressed, not just this individual instance. I admit I don't know whether AN would have been more appropriate. --[[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 19:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Bad block''' - unblock. The reason given for the block, according to the block log is - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList/User:Rager7 I think you blew your chance...] - not a policy based reason. And highlighting strike two which Graham87 said is "technically [[WP:HA|harassment]], which is defined as 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 Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing''. How on earth is a Discord friend request a "pattern of repeated offensive behavior", and why is this friend request threatening or intimidating to the point Graham87 is frightened or discouraged from editing. Very dubious reasoning for being harassment, in my view. And strike one and strike two are ridiculous as well. This is an overzealous block, and Graham87 should immediately unblock Rager7, and if he doesn't want to, he should step aside, and let another admin handle this.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*:OK, I'll unblock ... and won't take any more unilateral administrative action regarding this user except in [[WP:BEANS|highly far-fetched emergency scenarios I need not enumearate]] where any reasonable admin would block a user, but I do think their editing still needs to be supervised).
*:Re: harassment: I recently noticed the message above by [[User:Matticusmadness|Matticusmadness]] and was about to reply up there but my Internet connection went down, but what I was going to say there fits equally well here: {{section link|Wikipedia:Harassment|Off-wiki harassment}} says: "Editors who welcome private communication typically post their preferred contact information on Wikipedia, sometimes enabling email through the Wikipedia interface. Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment." So that makes what Rager7 did not exactly OK, but it was at least ... odd. The conversation itself, which came after my comment on the "Failed Austrian painter" redirect discussion, was pleasant enough and I just said that I respond to on-wiki things on-wiki. I did think about the possibility of something like this happening when I set up my Discord username. The context in which I use Discord is far removed from the mainstream culture on the platform and I don't use the [[Wikipedia:Discord|Wikimedia Discord server]] (though I was previously barely active on there). Maybe Discord is like email for the yunguns in some ways, but I wouldn't know. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 16:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Wait, so they tracked down your Discord UN, and Friend Req’d, even though you’re not in a mutual server, and didn’t really have a good reason to Friend Req you? That’s noticeably more red flag-y, and much more validating of a strike, if I’m reading you right. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 17:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::That is correct, and I still don't consider it block-worthy or harassment. It may be weird from our perspective, but to someone who is not used to communicating on-wiki, but ''is'' used to communicating on Discord, this may have seemed like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. [[WP:AGF]]. [[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::A friend request is not a [[Wikipedia:Discord#Prohibited behaviors|prohibited behavior]]. I'm not familiar with Discord at all, but isn't there a "accept/deny request" option for a friend request, so in cases where you don't want to be "friends" with someone, you can just deny it.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 21:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::You're citing the list of prohibited behaviors on the community Discord server. Graham, as he has said, is not a member on the server; what he's describing is equivalent to someone randomly sending a Facebook friend request to an admin, which—having had that happen to me twice with people I blocked—I can tell you is a pretty uncomfortable feeling. Per [[WP:OWH]], {{tq|Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited and, depending on the context, may be harassment.}} I have no opinion as to whether it justified a block, but it's certainly weird and inappropriate and a reasonable thing to bring up as problematic. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 04:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Indeed. Also their Discord username was different from their username on Wikipedia. When I asked who they were, they said they were Rager7. I guess it's not impossible (but highly unlikely) it was a [[Joe job]]. I've had people find me on Facebook before from onwiki blocks, but I've sometimes had productive things come out of that process (like users blocked due to collateral damage from IP range blocks). This is the first time something like this has happened on Discord though. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 05:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Nail on the head, Taz. You’ve bang on hit why it jumped out at me, from Graham’s explanation.
*:::::{{line break}}
*:::::Issaidnoway is also correct, but I’m thinking more “how did they find Graham’s Discord”? With this. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 09:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Probably by seeing what happened when they typed my Wikipedia username in to Discord ... as they're exactly the same (I did say on their talk page that guessing my Discord username isn't rocket science). It's probably better that stuff like that happens to *me* rather than some innocent party who might choose that username in future. If I'd gotten a Discord friend request in a different context I would have reacted differently. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 13:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::{{tq|as they're exactly the same}} '''Sigh.''' I really should’ve seen that one coming. {{shrug}} [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 17:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Thanks for the explanation, but that doesn't answer my question if you can just simply deny the friend request. My assumption is that you can deny it, which would seemingly suggest to the person who made the friend request, you didn't want to interact with them. And then if the person continued to pursue interaction with the other person, after being denied, then in my view, that would definitely constitute harassment. I just don't interpret a single friend request as being harassment.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 15:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I didn't know who they were and the easiest way to find out was to accept their friend request and ask them. I was thinking of it as technically harassment in terms of connecting screen names on separate platforms (as in our [[WP:OUTING|outing policy]], which deals with doing this publicly), but I've found out from the messages above and a close read of our policy that our definition of harassment isn't quite that broad. In retrospect, I should have at the most sent them a warning quoting the "Contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, should be assumed to be uninvited ..." text mentioned twice above here now. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 16:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Thanks for clearing that up, I also agree with you about quoting that relevant passage to Rager7 from our policy on harassment would have sufficed, and served as a formal warning not to do that again. [[User:Rager7|Rager7]], there has been some excellent advice in this thread concerning your conduct, do you understand not to do that again with a friend request, or contacting an editor using any other contact information, without first obtaining explicit permission, is inappropriate? And that you need to be more careful with your editing going forward?[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Yes, I understand I need to be more thoughtful when editing and also need to ask permission before friend requesting and/or direct messaging if I were to talk about Wikipedia off-site. [[User:Rager7|Rager7]] ([[User talk:Rager7|talk]]) 23:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:To further clarify the Discord messaging, I was trying to resolve the redirect dispute, granted from Graham's end it came off as weird, but that was my goal. The goal being was to settle the redirect dispute, granted it was taken the wrong way hence the re-block. [[User:Rager7|Rager7]] ([[User talk:Rager7|talk]]) 21:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:There's some intense [[WP:BITE]] activity here. Not only with misuse of the block button, but in the unbecoming way that Graham is interacting with new editors in general. I'd like to see at a minimum some indication that he is either going to change his approach in handling well-meaning new editors, or that he is not going to interact with them at all. The Discord thing is starting to seem like a [[red herring]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 03:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:Don't reward this behavior.
::Agreed. I would go further to say to Graham that if, in the future, you're choosing whether to block on "vibes", you absolutely do ''not'' do so. We don't have a three strikes rule, we don't block based on personal feelings, we don't try and ''Minority Report''-style decide before they've done something wrong they're not here for the right reasons, we block based on ''actual violation of PAGs''. [[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color: #ad3e00;">talk</span>]]</small></sup> 14:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Bad block'''. I can understand why these things made Graham87 feel leery, but we don't block based on vibes. Going over the three "strikes", while the first one looks like a silly redirect at first glance, reading the MFD discussion makes it clear that there was a reason for it (it's a euphemism used for Hitler on Facebook to avoid automated systems surrounding controversial topics.) That doesn't mean that it was a good redirect, but it was done in good faith and isn't so out-there as to be a conduct issue. The friend request was definitely the most inappropriate thing they did, but it's an easy mistake for someone new to the site to make; many more informal sites out there do use Discord to discuss blocks and bans with moderators. Assuming they immediately dropped it when they realized they'd screwed up I don't think it calls for a block. And the {{tq|testing the waters of which edits makes sense or not}} bit, which actually prompted the block, was awkwardly-phrased but clearly isn't saying anything inappropriate. It's expressing trepidation because their earlier experience (which felt [[WP:BITE]]y to them) meant they were afraid they would run afoul of some other obscure policy and get blocked... which, to be totally fair, seems like a reasonable way to feel given that they were immediately blocked for that comment. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
*:OK, I'll agree to use more solid grounds than "just vibes" to block users in the future. Good to know re the comment about Discord up above. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Kautilya3, Offwiki canvassing thru emails and social media ==
:One of them gave up an account of several years because he was afraid he was about to be outed as a Democratic Party operative. I suspect there are others who differ from him only in being more careful about concealing their Democratic Party links. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
===Case===
::This is completely inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia. You don't get to level accusation after accusation against other editors based on nothing but your own imaginings. If your present behavior is any indication, your previous problems were entirely because of your reaction to normal Wikipedia interaction. If you want to be a positive presence on Wikipedia, you must learn to play well with others, even if, especially if, they disagree with you. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]])</small> 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Kautilya3 has a history of conflict-of-interest behavior that is disruptive, that spreads disinformation, and harms en-Wikipedia. This includes chronic off-wiki stealth canvassing to stack votes, elect admins thru offline canvassing so that they help target a group of editors, create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles, and such inappropriate practices. This thread is a step to review Kautilya3's chronic behavior and editing particularly relating to Manipur and Meitei-Kuki people en-Wiki articles. Evidence follows.
 
This case also seeks a review of Kautilya3-style Wikipedia editing coordinated with off-wikipedia social media posts and the conflict of interest editing issues it raises. Should editors be sanctioned where evidence establishes Kautilya3-style chronic behavior where
:'''Strong support''' --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:I heartily welcome such attention to the article. As someone who has been repeatedly berated by the involved editors as a "whiner", liar, etc., for participating on this noticeboard in a non-administrative capacity, I ask that we clarify that good-faith, plausible reports of editor misbehavior, SSP and checkuser requests, and other are ''not'' impermissible assumptions of bad faith, but that taunting editors for their good faith participation in administrative discussions ''is'' considered disruptive. Non-admins can be honest dealers too. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, casting aspersions (assumptions of bad faith) has been, and continues to be a major problem in this area. It is unacceptable for editors to continually make accusations in an attempt to besmirch another's reputation. Engaging in tendentious argument is also futile. Any concerns should be raised in the appropriate forums, if at all. (Eg; sock-puppetry accusations go as a checkuser request or to [[WP:SSP]]) If users have concerns about the continual filing of reports against an individual (should that happen) as if it were an act of harassment or something else, then they should pursue [[WP:DR]]. Accusations, attacks and the like are not to be scattered through article talk page discussions, as it further contributes to a toxic environment. The proposed article probation is intended (in spirit, if not by the letter) to tackle these sorts of issues as well. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
*an editor advertises themselves as a Wikipedian on social media,
:I support any measure that encourages users to play nice, but I'm wondering why we need probation for the article and why we don't just impose it on the particular troublesome user. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]])</small> 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
*synchronizes their social media canvassing and activism with their Wikipedia editing,
::It's not the first user who has been troublesome there, and been subject to lengthy ANI discussions, blocks etc., and for some time to come at least, won't be the last one either. I think the proposed/new scheme should be more effective in dealing with any other problems/problem-users, both now and in the future. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
*where the editor encourages others to hire paid editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles that affects them,
:::In that case, I '''support''' this suggestion. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|talk]])</small> 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
*where an editor celebrates off-wiki violence, disparages one side and cheers the other side of a tragic and violent human conflict on social media,
*where the same editor acts as the primary or a key gate-keeper of articles relating to that tragic human conflict,
*where the editor misrepresents scholarly sources to fabricate a narrative that favors one group in that active conflict, and thereby harms en-Wikipedia, harms readers of en-Wikipedia, and harms en-Wikipedia community?
 
'''For Crats and OVERSIGHT team:''' this is not [WP:OUT]-ing, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ms_Sarah_Welch&diff=prev&oldid=1245563289#Kautilya3,_Offwiki_canvassing_thru_emails_and_social_media this discussion and agreement by Barkeep49] (also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kautilya3&diff=prev&oldid=1174891374 this])
:I support this suggestion as well, although how it differs from current practice will clearly need to be explained on the talk pages. I suggest we apply this to both the McCain and Obama pages. There don't seem to be quite as many problems on the McCain pages at this point but applying this to only the Obama pages would no doubt be characterized by some as evidence of a pro-Obama slant. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::What previously required constant community consensus for each individual editing restriction can now be imposed at the discretion of an administrator. I'm not sure it can be extended to McCain pages in the absence of any major problems, like the Obama pages have encountered in the last 3 months. It's primarily intended to deal with editorial misconduct; an important BLP should not be subject to a toxic environment, especially for that long. But if the community wants to deal with both issues at the same time, I certainly do not have a problem with it. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 04:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Case evidence:
Support. About time. Please give a warning first, except in egregious cases. I hope that at least several administrators get involved in this. Editors should understand that baiting/taunting/goading by someone else will not be considered an excuse for their own behavior. As FT2 has been saying recently, we're each responsible for our own behavior. I expect monitoring administrators to set a good example in their own communications and follow procedures to the letter -- otherwise you may start repelling good editors from the articles. [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:I support (as noted, I'm not an admin). Gathering up thoughts from the above discussion could we include some or all of the following? "Except in egregious cases editors should receive at least one warning, or must otherwise be clearly aware (1) of the terms of this article probation, and (2) that their specific conduct is deemed problematic, before any administrative sanctions apply. A heightened standard of civility applies: editors should not on the talk page post comments that disparage or make accusations regarding each other's alleged biases, veracity, editing ability, conflicts of interest, status as legitimate editors, and so on, whether directly or indirectly, by name or by reference to groups or edit history. All commentary about editor behavior should be directed to appropriate dispute resolution forums, or a sub-page created to discuss edits on the talk page, which reports if made reasonably and in good faith are not considered to be in violation of the article probation." - [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::Probably not; the standard wording I've used for this remedy is sufficient. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::: I agree the attention would be welcomed;however, the standard practices of civility etc. are more than adequate. I would suggest one warning from an uninvolved administrator to the talk page of a truly offending editor and than true sanctions starting with 24 hour topic blocks and escalating thereafter. I think most editors could use a clean slate there. I do think that the "friendly" warnings often do not serve to calm a situation, but rather to inflame. if we can get someone uninvolved in editing to watch, it would be warmly welcomed.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 05:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)05:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: The clean slate is okay, if only people will take advantage of it to get a fresh start. I think the concern isn't the occasional isolated lapse of temper but long-term low tension that's developed among editors. At the risk of too many rules we could ask that any official warnings under the probation system be left to uninvolved administrators. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. I'm done here unless there are more suggestions.--[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment.''' This idea is on the right track, but before officially supporting I'd like to see some input from admins who have experience with enforcing Arbcom sanctions, for example, admins who have logged any blocks or bans under Arbcom cases. The above proposal, though it does not come from Arbcom, has the flavor of those kind of sanctions. Also, whoever is going to impose those kind of restrictions will need to follow the Obama page night and day. Do we have admins willing to volunteer for such hazardous duty? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
**I think (I might be corrected if I'm wrong) there are 2 admins, Gamaliel and Rick Block, who are regularly looking at it (although, I don't think any admin in the world will want to do it as exhaustively as you've suggested :) nuh uh). [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
***Since both Gamaliel and Rick Block are active in participating in the discussions on that page, neither is likely to be in a position to do anything more than report problematic edits and comments -- just as any other editor would. Given Rick Block's [[User talk:Noroton#Rezko|statements to me on my talk page]], I have no faith in his ability to step back from someone he disagrees with and give a fair assessment to an uninvolved admin. What we need are multiple, uninvolved admins who get a sense of what individual editors have been doing on those pages because they've been watching them regularly. MastCell has done some of that, but I haven't seen that admin comment on this section of the thread. In the past, some other admins have said they'd watch those pages, but I haven't seen evidence of that. This proposal of Ncmvocalist's will not work until we get what we've always needed: multiple, uninvolved, admin eyes aware of the context and attached to fingers willing to warn and block for clear misbehavior. [[User:Noroton|Noroton]] ([[User talk:Noroton|talk]]) 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
****There's a rub. Any administrator moderating the Obama pages will get drawn into content - and probably they should. We need moderation to handle POV pushing, accusations of bias or imbalance, reliable sourcing, weight issues, BLP vios, dealing with perennial proposals, keeping discussions on track, declaring a discussion closed or an edit to be with or without consensus, etc. Otherwise we don't solve the process problems that keep the article in an indefinite stasis while generating long heated talk page fights. Such a person can be fair and unbiased, but as soon as they tell an editor that their praise or derogatory comments about Obama are out of line, or issue a warning or administrative action, they're likely to be accused of taking sides or having an agenda. They end up in a war of words with the offending editor, trying just to justify their own actions, and so their neutrality is not accepted by everyone anymore. That's what seems to have happened with Gamaliel, Rick Block, and perhaps other administrators on the page. Noroton is clearly a serious, capable editor, and I think his questioning of Rick Block's neutrality and fairness is a fair, good faith concern - not that I agree necessarily, just that it's a fair question. I'll let people form their own opinions on the recent dispute between Gamaliel and WorkerBee74 on WB74's talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WorkerBee74#Your_comments_on_Talk:Barack_Obama] How can one draw a distinction? [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
1. User:Kautilya3 off-wiki canvassed for RfA votes in favor of Vanamonde93 in order to help elect Vanamonde93 as an admin. Kautilya3's motive was included in that email to me, the very first email I ever received from Kautilya3 through Wikipedia. In that email, Kautilya3 cast aspersions on editors – without evidence – who in good faith opposed Vanamonde93 as admin, and made a bigoted allegation against "oppose" voters. Kautilya3 helped Vanamonde93 get elected as admin thru stealth offline canvassing (I cannot post the original emails of Kautilya3 per WP:ANI guidelines because it contains personal information about Kautilya3 and me, names of other Wikipedia admins and editors he claimed he regularly offline corresponds with; the originals include email address, real names and other information; One original email of Kautilya3 that stealth-canvassed to stack votes in favor of User:Vanamonde93 to elect him as admin has already been forwarded to ARBCOM; An ARBCOM member has acknowledged receiving the email).
===[[WP:GAME|Gaming the system]] by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]]===
{{discussiontop}}
At [[Barack Obama]], [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] has engaged in low-level edit warring and provocation for the past 48 hours. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=227320240&oldid=227314863][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=227345193&oldid=227340316][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=227652799&oldid=227625750][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=227744015&oldid=227736679]
 
2. Evidence as recent as September 2024 suggests Kautilya3 actively advertises on off-wiki social media that he is a Wikipedian. He posts on social media about topics he actively edits and gate-keeps on Wikipedia ([https://x.com/kautilya33 2a], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1711834017606111402 2b], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1732149671395561729 2c]).
LotLE is fully aware of the 3RR rule and all of its components. He/she has successfully had other editors blocked under this rule, not for four reverts in a 24-hour period, but for violating the ''spirit'' of the rule. He/she is attempting to remove any mention of controversial Catholic priest [[Michael Pfleger]], and a photo of Obama with Gen. [[David Petraeus]].
 
3. The User:Kautilya3 en-Wikipedia account is the same person as social media account @Kautilya33. This is established by the en-Wiki edits claimed by the social media account and timing of edits. For example, see December 5 2023 edits on social media and en-Wikipedia. ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1732149671395561729 3a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._R._Ambedkar&diff=prev&oldid=1188423417 3b]).
This is low-level edit warring coupled with low-level provocation. Please notice the edit summaries. He/she directs other users to the article Talk page where there is nothing to support him/her. He/she accuses one user of being a "contentious SPA," and notes that another has an "interesting focus" (user's focus appears to be gay rights). See also this diff [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=227651953&oldid=227650468] on the article Talk page, where he/she encourages others to "start ignoring the provocations and sophistry of the SPA."
 
4. In his social media posts, Kautilya3 has encouraged others to hire and pay Wikipedia editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles affecting them. For example, he wrote, "I have mentioned above, an experienced [Wikipedia] editor who offers her services for payment." ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1687550188590624770 4a], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1687479526022942720 4b])
LotLE has a long and turbulent history of combative and provocative behavior that resulted in several blocks and countless warnings that he/she has deleted from his/her User Talk page. This is [[WP:GAME|gaming the system]]. Both [[Barack Obama]] and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] are already semi-protected, and the article is on the verge of community probation at [[WP:ANI]], due to such edit warring and continued provocation. LotLE is a significant part of the problem. Please take action, since it is necessary here.
 
5. Kautilya3's social media activity is closely linked to his Wikipedia activity. His offline canvassing and wiki-editing favors one side. An example of Kautilya3's WP:COI editing is in en-Wiki articles related to the Manipur conflict where violence has led to death and destruction. ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1695385146038378891 5a]), [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1663178542371274752 5b], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1746082952067305594 5c], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1789264496755671482 5d], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1718628685022916838 5e], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1715019991009972274 5f], etc). Kautilya3's social media where he presents himself as Wikipedia expert extends beyond X/Twitter, includes videos, interviews (however, per WP:OUT, I cannot include those links here as Kautilya3 has not disclosed those on Wikipedia on his own).
I suggest a 48-hour block and a topic ban until after the election. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk:Kossack4Truth|talk]]) 14:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
According to an Indian newspaper, 226 human beings have died and 1500 injured as of May 3 2024 ([https://indianexpress.com/article/india/manipur-marks-one-year-of-conflict-counting-the-cost-amid-tears-9304527/ 5g]). The tragic violence has restarted and is spreading again in September 2024 ([https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/manipur-violence-situation-tense-colleges-shut-on-september-11-12-internet-suspended-10-points-101726019802796.html 5h]).
:Sorry, there was no consensus for a block at [[WP:AN3|AN3]]. Let's not forum shop for a block here. As a side note, is Kossack4Truth topic banned from any Obama-related page? <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
6. The social media account of Kautilya3, the Wikipedian, advocates, invites and takes one side in his off-wiki posts ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1690338394331545600 6a], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1801577415094813150 6b]).
::No, I am not. And while the [[WP:3RR]] administrators are unprepared to take action on a combination of low-level edit warring and low-level provocation (focusing only on the low-level edit warring and ignoring the low-level provocation, which has an exponential effect), others here at [[WP:ANI]] who are more familiar with the turbulent histories of both the article and the user may be prepared to do so. I know for a fact that if I had engaged in such misconduct, I would be blocked in a New York minute and it would last for at least a week. Also, I would get the topic ban you thought I had. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk:Kossack4Truth|talk]]) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Kautilya3 has not only advocated in favor of one side ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1801577415094813150 6d], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1690331569062293506 6e], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1801577415094813150 6f], etc), he has cast aspersions and advocated against the other side, including caricaturing the other side as "Meitei fundamentalists" ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1685585540077244416 6g], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1690331569062293506 6h], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1804981044229054475 6i], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1729124147773800562 6j], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1704140642715099309 6k]).
:::I've asked MastCell to clarify whether Kossack4Truth is indeed topic-banned. My understanding from the old ANI thread was that they were placed under restriction - I might be wrong. Whether or not that is the case, as Seicer points out, Kossack4Truth is [[WP:PARENT|forum shopping]] with this--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
In one X/Twitter thread, Kautilya3 the Wikipedian wrote his support for violence, "The Valley of Manipur is burning! This makes me strangely happy. Let the crooks stew in their own juices." ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1762563557319639422 6c]).
LotLE is definitely skating thin ice, and probably should've been blocked. Too bad we lack proactive, courageous admins who will pre-empt such behaviors with a few prominent blocks like this could've been. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
This is one example of his personal involvement in this tragic conflict. Such one sided, violence-cheering Wikipedian should not be editing and gatekeeping Wikipedia articles about that very region, topics and the side he advocates (with disinformation as evidenced below).
:I agree, it's most unfortunate. The people on one side who do the baiting and badgering get a free pass and, when the people on the other side react, they're blocked in a New York minute. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk:Kossack4Truth|talk]]) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
7. Kautilya3 has added content to Wikipedia articles that is false, misrepresents the cited source, and spreads his disinformation. For example, Kautilya3 has been the dominant editor of the wikipedia article about Kuki people – one of the parties in the tragic violent conflict in Manipur ([https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Kuki_people 7a], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuki_people&action=history 7b], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1762563557319639422 7c]).
::::Although Scarian and myself thought it was essential for Kossack4Truth to be topic-banned for 3 months...MastCell, Bigtimepeace and Ed Johnston were reluctant on handing out individual topic bans or editing restrictions at the time, so unfortunately, he's not. He was blocked for misconduct at a later date (just like the other individual users who I proposed be topic-banned at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Barack_Obama_pages#Updated_Suggestions_by_Ncmv_and_Scarian]]). Rather than say ''I told you so'', I think the time is ripe for article probation as suggested in the above section. Nevertheless, I agree - Kossack4Truth is forum shopping here, so I'm closing this section. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Kautilya3 added the following content to wikipedia on Kuki people, "Taranatha (1575–1634) wrote a description of the Kuki (''Ko-ki'') country, including in it almost the entire northeastern India" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuki_people&diff=prev&oldid=1218291075 7d]). This is false. It is not supported by the Michael Lunminthang source cited, or the source Michael Lunminthang himself cites. For those who do not have access to these sources, you can find the relevant section of the sources with context and a discussion here: ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ms_Sarah_Welch/ArbCom_K3 7e]).
:::::I don't see this as FORUM, i see it as not getting any response at AN3, because it's rare to see admins do the big digging there. I've had reports there bounced for not including all the diffs, or for linking to the page history, not the diffs. Further, looking at that page you linked, it's clear that LotLE has as long history of edit warring. This should be fully examined here, not swept under the rug again. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::More than 3 admins have looked at the 3RR report, and 2 are aware of the history. Blocks are not punitive, and there has been full attention given. This type of forumshopping by Kossack4Truth is unacceptable. The page I've given is not an evidence page - it's an archived discussion, and nothing is being swept under the rug. Unless a sysop wishes to use tools or give it more attention (in which case they're welcome to reopen the thread), this should stay closed. The consensus is clear. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Neither Michael Lunminthang nor Taranatha sources ever described Kuki country "included almost the entire northeastern India" (a term that means "Assam (Kamarupa), Arunachal, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Meghalaya"). This is disinformation fabricated by Kautilya3. Kautilya3 added content is not only original research, it is false, feeds his social media narrative and incites. He has used his false and fabricated narrative in Wikipedia to further his social media activism with false statements off-wiki. For example, "So, the New Kukis were not new arrivals into Manipur. Rather Manipur was a new arrival into the Kuki land" ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1705951855493210435 7f]).
::::::So, now admins are above the rest of us? I don't see that consensus. What I see is a long slow edit warring and revert pattern on the part of LotLE. I see involved editors/admins protecting her, and blaming everyone else, instead of working to solve the problem and prevent further edit warring on the page. I think this needs more attention, and given the long-time belief that admins are no different than editors, just a coupel new buttons, I'm reopening this for wider community consensus and action. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
{{discussionbottom}}
 
Kautilya3 has thus leveraged Wikipedia to create and spread the disinformation that northeast India was the historical nation of Kuki-people. He has repeated this misinformation on social media ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1705951855493210435 7l]). He thus falsely implies that Kuki-people historically had their own country that today is northeast India, the numerous other tribes and ethnic groups in northeast India are invaders or colonizers or migrants to Kuki country. This is incitement thru Wikipedia and an abuse of Wikipedia.
== Possibly disruptive image tagging ==
 
This example shows how Kautilya3 has used Wikipedia as a megaphone to spread falsehoods. He advises his followers on social media to "read Wikipedia". ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1697965278657724730 7g], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1752780992375300273 7h], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1789636560696005120 7i], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1597938138504364034 7j], etc). While misrepresenting scholarship and creating misinformation, he claims in his social media post, "On Wikipedia, we use only high-quality sources that know what they are talking about. We [...] provide only a gist of authentic information." ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1590502705537388545 7k]). The last part is obviously false as neither Michael Lunminthang nor Taranatha ever described Kuki country "included almost the entire northeastern India" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ms_Sarah_Welch/ArbCom_K3 or anything close]).
This post is in reference to recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=OsamaK&month=&year= mass tagging] of images for deletion by [[User:OsamaK]]. I've tried to talk it over with him [[Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Sourcing_for_PD_images|here]] but he seems impervious to my line of argument so perhaps I can hear a wider range of views on here (plus those images are set to be deleted soon, so there's a sense of urgency to this).
 
8. Kautilya3's conflict-of-interest editing and gatekeeping of Manipur conflict-related articles is extensive. See the last 1000 edits by him ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Kautilya3&target=Kautilya3&offset=&limit=500 8a]), also see specific Manipur-related, Kuki people-related and Meitei people-related Wikipedia articles ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023%E2%80%932024_Manipur_violence&action=history 8b]).
The idea is simple: we all agree sources should be provided for images, but I believe, and OsamaK doesn't, that there are some common-sense exceptions to that rule, mainly involving old (say pre-1923) images uploaded years ago when the rules were more lax. Take, for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AndrewSterett.jpeg this one]. The subject died ''201'' years ago. The sketch was uploaded five years ago by someone inactive for over a year. It's not readily accessible on the Internet. Can't we presume PD?? Or how about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tchaikovsky-11.jpg this one]? The photo is at least 115 years old, and is from Russia, where anything is PD if the author died before 1953, which is almost certainly the case. There are many other examples among the images tagged by OsamaK. The problem is he has a rather extreme view on the subject: afraid of "forgery, deception and lack of confidence", he will ask that any unsourced image be deleted, regardless of "when uploaded, when taken, when died". I find this stance narrow-minded and disruptive in that it threatens to rob us of many undoubtedly PD images. Perhaps some intervention could rescue them. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Kautilya3 has leveraged Wikipedia to push his socio-political beliefs through social media as evidenced above. He has also leveraged Wikipedia and social media to help craft one-sided narrative and argue his socio-political beliefs: ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1705951838061609240 8c], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1705951855493210435 8d], [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1731966582635540863 8e], etc).
:Sigh... It has been discussed so many times before. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive244#Sources_for_Mona_Lisa.3F|HERE]], for instance. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 07:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
9. In past cases, ArbCom has unanimously agreed that "editors who have publicly tied their Wikipedia usernames to other online or offline activities may become subject to on-wiki scrutiny of their off-wiki behavior that would impact adversely on the English Wikipedia" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles#Scrutiny_for_off-wiki_behavior 9a]). Wikipedia ARB committee has unanimously and repeatedly voted that off-wiki stealth canvassing can be disruptive, deserving of sanctions, and issued sanctions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list&diffonly=true#Off-wiki_communication 9b], ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles#Off-wiki_conduct 9c], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_communication 9d]).
:Definitely disruptive, these images are clearly PD, regardless of their lack of sourcing. Someone with automation tools needs to undo these tags, which should never have been placed. Losing all these images will be detrimental to the project. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::: How to discus while you undoing my edits?--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: I'm so sorry, I have to undo all of your undoing. Stop now!--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::The first couple I checked, I don't think it's disruptive, I think it's a fair cop. No matter the age of an image, it still needs a proper source, and those items didn't have one. No image comes from thin air. Maybe threatening to delete in 7 days is a bit much, but the rules are what they are. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 07:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Given past ArbCom cases and rulings, this case requests a scrutiny of Kautilya3's on-wiki and off-wiki behavior, the conflict of interest issues it raises, and whether Kautilya3 should leverage Wikipedia as a megaphone for his advocacy and political activity by publishing misinformation that he then repeats to his followers on social media. His behavior needs to be scrutinized in light of his off-wiki activity such as encouraging others off-wiki to subscribe to paid en-Wiki editors to spruce up their articles, and his history of off-wiki canvassing to disrupt good practices within Wikipedia such as admin elections etc.
::: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGhirlandajo&diff=225590401&oldid=224988254 Yeah], [[George Dawe]] will rise from the dead to sue Jimbo and Wikipedia over [[:Image:Aleksey Arakcheyev.jpg]]. You are free to believe this, but please don't flood my talk page with this useless clutter and loud deletion threats. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
If after due review of above evidence and cross checks, if Kautilya3 is found to have violated good practices, disrupted and harmed Wikipedia, I request that he be appropriately sanctioned to protect the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of current and future Wikipedia readers. If he is not, one hopes the same standards will be applied to past editors who have been blocked or topic-banned, as well as future editors who do what Kautilya3 has done.
::::Not likely, but you still need to provide a source. I've been told this many times about images regardless of their age. Maybe it came from a website, maybe from a book; but wherever, it did not come from thin air, it had to come from ''someplace''. You need to provide a source. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
[[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 03:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::No, you don't need a source in that sense. You do need enough information (author or publication) to verify public domain status, though, and being really old isn't enough. If someone was born in 1840, took a photo in the U.S. at the age of 10, never published it, and died at the age of 100, we have an 1850 photo that's copyrighted until 2010. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::OK, but really, how likely is that? At some point (pre-1900?) we ought to err on the side of assuming PD. Requesting source information is fine, but threatening to delete within a week when they've sat there for 4-5 years with no problems is rather counterproductive. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:The evidence is compelling against the user Kautilya , wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly place where discord is not encouraged, this person seems to be sowing discord going by the activity provided as evidence and by a cursory glance at his regular edits. [[Special:Contributions/2405:201:C000:C8B5:E140:8CE5:C835:4C1E|2405:201:C000:C8B5:E140:8CE5:C835:4C1E]] ([[User talk:2405:201:C000:C8B5:E140:8CE5:C835:4C1E|talk]]) 03:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:: You know, I stopped arguing with these guys after they deleted the equivalent of [[:Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 058.jpg]] because "the uploader needs to prove that it is a rembrandt" and not the work of a modern forger. I suddenly realized that browsing the web archives for a website where I had found the image years ago was not worth the effort: they will still find something to torment me with, say, that the attribution of Rembrandt paintings is highly uncertain, or that a reproduction may not reflect the original color scheme quite faithfully, or something else. In short, I can't prove that it is a rembrandt to someone who is determined to expose what a cheat I am. Let them have their way. I still firmly believe that the activity aimed at sourcing=deleting obvious (and in many cases hard-to-find) PD-art stuff is detrimental to the encyclopaedia. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</sup> 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
: ''extreme view''. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not a copyright extremist. I (and many others) just read Wikipedia image policies and try to apply it. Simply, because it is our interest. Well, if Mr. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] ,or anyone else, think that image source policy has to change, I'll discus, and I may agree for better image hosting, but it is not my job! I think currently policy is fair enough. It is ugly to say: ''"a troll"'', ''"extreme view"'' or ''"Definitely disruptive"''. It is not my mistake when I try to apply Wikipedia policy.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::Just to clarify, I never accused you of trolling. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
: Right, you did not.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 14:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
===Comments by other editors===
:The problem is that documentations tell us to note you by default. It is easier to skip you and others, and tag image page only. Once, I had a problem in Wikimedia Commons, I filled some inactive user talk pages with these notes, which makes my browsing so slower. I taught about skipping all user talk pages. After few days, an user undid all of my edits and my hard work lost! For that reason, I note all users. Read [[Template:Di-no source/doc|this documentation]] for more.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The evidence presented for Kautilya3's glorification of Manipur violence is highly concerning. [[User:Raymond3023|Raymond3023]] ([[User talk:Raymond3023|talk]]) 03:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
 
* '''Questions.''' You wrote: {{tq|This thread is a step to review Kautilya3's [1] chronic behavior and editing particularly [2] relating to Manipur and Meitei-Kuki people en-Wiki articles. Evidence follows.}}
If an image is so old it's OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLY in the public domain (say, photos of people that weren't alive at any time when a copyright would still be valid), no source for the image is needed. It's trivial. Doesn't matter where it come from, no matter how or when it's public domain. Tagging countless images we have a perfect right to use to be deleted based upon stubborn kneejerk adherence to a policy just adds countless hours of work for people to go through and try to fix them all for no good reason, assuming they get caught before deletion. Blind adherence to a pointless policy when someone knows that it's considered bad behavior is not even an attempt at good faith anymore, it's just being stubborn. If OsamaK wants to help Wikipedia he'll voluntarily stop doing these things. If not I think he should be temporarily blocked so he gets the idea that what he's doing is wrong. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 15:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:There are quite a lot of accusations:
: you ''cannot'' say that yourself. you ''cannot'' even block me for a minute or less. you cannot reexplain the clear policy to be compatible with your view. People in everywhere delete unsourced images since image policy created; here, in Arabic Wikipedia, and in Wikimedia Commons (at least). Please be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]].--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:* User:Kautilya3 has [3] a history of [3a] conflict-of-interest behavior that is [3b] disruptive, that [3c] spreads disinformation, and [3d] harms en-Wikipedia.
===Moved from seperate section below===
:* [4] [a] chronic [b] off-wiki stealth canvassing [c] to stack votes, [d] elect admins thru offline canvassing [d1] so that they [the administrators?] help target a group of editors, [d2] create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles, [d3] and such inappropriate practices.
[[User:Ed Fitzgerald|Ed Fitzgerald]] doesn't stop removing my image tags without discussion or even change the default edit summary. I asked him three times ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Fitzgerald&diff=227183700&oldid=227164765 one], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Fitzgerald&diff=227227192&oldid=227203764 two], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=227215076&oldid=227214808 three]) to stop doing that, and he didn't respond and still redoing. last moment he undid [[:Image:AR Sevier Ambrose.jpg]] and [[:Image:Apelles.jpg]]. I want someone note him to stop doing that ''for last time'' until the end of [[#Possibly disruptive image tagging|discussion]] above.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:Lookin' at his contribs, that looks unhealthily like stalking. It's only in the last 50 or so edits, so it's not a major problem right now, but I'll go have a word with him. Cheers. --<font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font> <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|contribs]])</small> 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:You also wrote: {{tq|This case also seeks a review of [5] Kautilya3-style Wikipedia editing [5a] coordinated with off-wikipedia social media posts and [5b] the conflict of interest editing issues it raises. Should editors be sanctioned where [5] evidence establishes Kautilya3-style chronic behavior where}}
:::I've moved this section up into the main thread from a seperate section below. The problem is that this editor is tagging obviously PD images because they are in technical violation of a absolutist reading of policy, and if they are not untagged, they will be deleted, at a detriment to the project. The editor has had this explained to him, and continues in his actions, so no edit summary is necessary on each seperate revert which, because I do not have automation, I am doing by hand. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:* [5c] an editor advertises themselves as a Wikipedian on social media,
::::I suggest a copy-paste edit summary, then; it'd be rather easy to hit tab after editing then paste it in. Cheers. --<font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font> <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|contribs]])</small> 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:* [5d] synchronizes their social media canvassing and activism with their Wikipedia editing,
:::::OK, will do. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:* [5e] where the editor encourages others to hire paid editors to spruce up Wikipedia articles that affects them,
: This is just one side. I'm talk about losing my time without discussion! We have a week to get a solution.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:* [5f] where an editor [5f1]celebrates off-wiki violence, [5f2] disparages one side and cheers the other side of a tragic and violent human conflict on social media,
::There's no need to wait a whole week if a solution is presented before then. [[User:SWik78|SWik78]] <small>([[User talk:SWik78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SWik78|contribs]])</small> 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:* [5g] where the same editor acts as the primary or a key gate-keeper of articles relating to that tragic human conflict,
:::There's been discussion -- just look above. Your actions may be in strict adherence to a dogmatic reading of policy, but they're not helpful to ther project. You really should stop and help to undo the tagging you've done so far. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:* [5h] where the editor misrepresents scholarly sources [5h1] to fabricate a narrative that favors one group in that active conflict, and [5h2] thereby harms en-Wikipedia, [5h3] harms readers of en-Wikipedia, and [5h4] harms en-Wikipedia community.
: But there is no one! He is removing my long time tagging, he is ignoring and breaking above discussion! He is explaining the policy as his personally view to it and trying to impose it on others? '''Note:''' I stop tagging ages ago!--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::You say you stopped tagging ''ages ago'' but, actually, I see that you reverted Ed's removal of your tags about an hour ago: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Andrew_Murray.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=227227139]. [[User:SWik78|SWik78]] <small>([[User talk:SWik78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SWik78|contribs]])</small> 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
: I didn't mean ''ages''. Last ''new '' tag was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Blanche-de-Castilla.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=227054374 this] one, on 19:30, 21 July 200.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Oh man. You're losing your time, I noted you many and many times, I stopped tagging last 36 hours at least: I'll undo all of your undoing.. If any admin wants to take an action, (s)he should review his edit first. This is a stupid game.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 07:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, it is a '''''stupid and disruptive game''''' and you're playing it. Consensus here is clearly against you, and yet you continue to waste the time of a number of editors by reverting. Since you seem to be unable or uninterested in discussing the '''''issues''''' (as opposed to complaining about other's actions), and you've now upped the ante by using '''''Twinkle''''', the only solution may be for an '''''admin to block you'''''. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
: :). I asked you ''many and many times'' to stop it. I'm not here for playing. You will not put the ball in my court, I have more comments there than you, Can not I discus? So, in your view, you can undo '''all''' of my edits with invalid reason, but I cannot restore them. Are you kidding? --[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::'''''In the beginning''''' the images were as they were, then you came along and tagged them for deletion. People objected to that, began a discussion and removed your tags, returning the images to their original condition '''''and that's how they should stay while the discussion continues'''''. if the discussion goes against you, the images are in the condition they need to be in, if the discussion goes for you, you can revert the untagging '''''which you have been doing anyway,''''' so it's no additional work for you. This is the reasonable and proper procedure to follow. You seem to want to have the discussion continue while the timer ticks down on the images and they get deleted, meaning they would have to them go to deletion review, more work for everybody.<p>So, yes, the answer to your question is all of your tagging edits should indeed be undone, pending the outcome of the discussion -- which, incidentally, is clearly going against you -- after which they can be restored if that's the consensus. Please use your script and remove your tags, and avoid the necessity for others to do it. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Some comments:
* Regarding [3]: that alone is a heavy accusation, which indeed begs evidence. Without evidence, this is baseless character-assassination, colouring the impression the rest of your accusatiins make.
* Regarding [4d]: you <s>are accusing</s> implicitly accuse Vanamonde93 of helping to "target a group of editors," thereby questioning their neutrality and their admin-actions. You also <s>accuse</s> implicitly accuse Vanamonde 93 of helping to "create a one-sided narrative in Wikipedia articles." And you imply that Vanamonde93 engages in other "inappropriate practices." This needs a lot of explanation, and reminds of an off-wiki "dossier" mentioned by a now-blocked editor, in which Vanamonde93 was targetted. So, how about ''your'' conflicts of interest?
* Regarding [4d], bis: you wrote "elect admins" - you imply that Kautilya3 has tried to influence admin-votes repeatedly. You also imply that there are ''multiple'' admins with the same problematic behaviour you imply Vanamonde93 exhibits.
* Regarding [5e]: [[WP:PAID]] is not forbidden, as long as it is disclosed. The full at [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1687550188590624770 this Twitter-post] you linked is:
:{{talkquote|Hello Suhagji, you are talking about newbie editors, mostly your members, who come to spruce up your page, without any understanding of how Wikipedia works. They certainly won't succeed. I have mentioned above, an experienced editor who offers her services for payment.}}
:Which page is this?
[[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 04:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
 
::{{ping|Joshua Jonathan}} Please read the case again. This case is entirely about Kautilya3. Vanamonde93 is only mentioned in part [1], in the context that Kautliya3 stealth canvassing for his election as an admin. Nowhere is this "accusing Vanamonde93 of ...." etc. Please avoid straw man arguments. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
==== Comment by alnokta ====
:::This is what you imply: that Kautilya3 wanted Vanamonde93 to be elected as admin, in the expectation that he would take sides. I think you should remove the canvassing-allegations: you have already done an appeal on ARBCOM for that accusation, and we, ordinary editors, can't read, and therefor judge, the contents of those emails. It's confusing to mention that alleged canvassing when we can't judge it, but it does colour the rest of the post. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 05:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Jello,
 
* Regarding ([https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1762563557319639422 6c]), the full text is (emphasis K3):
Can we please get over with this issue? I don't see any harmful behavior by Osama here. he is just following the ''current'' policy, whether you like it or not. you should be thanking him for applying the policy not blame him. any image needs a source, how hard is that? if you don't like the tagging, provide sources, search the web and provide sources. or the other way around, go change the image policy regarding sources for public domain images. stop the game of reverting please.--[[User:Alnokta|Alnokta]] ([[User talk:Alnokta|talk]]) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:{{talkquote|Manipur is not burning any more!<br>The '''Valley of Manipur''' is burning!<br>This makes me strangely happy. Let the crooks stew in their own juices.}}
: fair enough :)--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:What exactly does this mean? [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 06:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:Please see [[WP:IAR]]. Yes, sources for images are crucial. But when a picture is obviously PD, we do ourselves a disservice by deleting it and not simply requesting a source. There's no legal benefit to be derived (since no one is going to sue), and no ethical one either (since the copyright has almost certainly expired). [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 20:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::In this context, 'burning' serves as a metaphor for political, social, or ethnic conflict. The 'Valley of Manipur', where the majority Meitei people reside, has experienced significant unrest. The statement reflects Kautilya's disdain toward the Meitei, whom they perceive as responsible for the unrest, and a sense of justice and satisfaction in seeing them suffer. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 09:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:: Could you please read [[WP:IAR?#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean]]?--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 01:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
* Regarding [5h]/(7), {{tq|Kautilya3 has added content to Wikipedia articles that is false, misrepresents the cited source, and spreads his disinformation. For example, Kautilya3 has been the dominant editor}} - when you are the dominant editor, your edits are incorrect? You have given ''one'' concrete example of what you think is incorrect, the Taranatha-description of the 'Kuki-country'. Kautilya3 wrote {{tq|Taranatha (1575–1634) wrote a description of the Kuki (Ko-ki) country, including in it almost the entire northeastern India.}} I can't see much fault in that, even less "disinformation." At best, it could be expanded with "extending it beyond the linguistic group of Kuki-Chin."
:::That's an essay, not policy. And anyway, since strict interpretation of the source requirement is in this narrow instance (obviously PD images) a hindrance to improving/maintaining Wikipedia, we can safely ignore it. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
* Regarding (8), you state {{tq| Kautilya3's conflict-of-interest editing and gatekeeping of Manipur conflict-related articles is extensive. See the last 1000 edits by him}}. That's not concrete.
: I saw that. but the question is: Who governs successfully of politics? Anyways, I think we're in a loop!--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 02:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
* What you basically are saying is that Kautilya3 is not a neutral editor with regard to the Manipur-conflict, but sides with the Kukis, as presumedly evidenced above; that his edits are biased, due to his pov and activism, as exemplified by one edit; and that therefor Kautilya3 should be {{tq|appropriately sanctioned to protect the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of current and future Wikipedia readers}}. Alternatively, what I also perceive in your overview, is that you either feel uncomfortable with Wiki-connected activism in general, or specifically, reject the particular pov Kautilya3 is taking. The real question is: are Kautilya3's edits biased? But also: what kind of editors is he up to there, for example at [[:2023–2024 Manipur violence]]? Neutral editors, or pov-warriors? And ''if'' his edits are biased, should a warning suffice, or should a topic-ban be considered? Regards, [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 06:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Taranatha should not be used unless quoted by reliable secondary sources. For example, Taranatha does mention that Brahmins used a form of "yagna magic" (ritualistic fire sacrifices) to destroy Nalanda. This claim is part of his larger narrative on the conflicts between Brahmins and Buddhists during the decline of Buddhism in India. According to Taranatha, the Brahmins performed a yagna (sacrificial ritual) that involved supernatural elements or "magic" to bring about the complete destruction of Nalanda University. However, I would not trust anything attributed to Taranatha without cross-checking. He might be right, and Brahmins may have supernatural powers, but more evidence would be needed. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 09:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::Whether Taranath's views belong to the article and if so, how it is to be framed, is a '''content-dispute''', patently unsuited for ANI intervention. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
* I agree with Joshua Jonathan; MSW's sole evidence of factual inaccuracy ("disinformation", no less!) is weak sauce. The rest of the evidence is indicative of "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach.{{pb}}For example, what is the issue with 2B and 2C? In 2C (repeated as 3A), K3 adds a citation, tweeted by an academic, to a Wikipedia article for a very non-controversial factoid; what's the link with Manipur? In 4A and 4B, K3 explains our policies on paid-editing to HAF folks and points to one of our better paid-editors — MG operates well within community norms and expectations — in the hope that HAF takes help from someone who has a good grasp of our policies and stop grovelling about "evil Wikipedia"! I see no fault with the engagement. K3 with V93, me, and others, has guarded the HAF page against persistent attempts at whitewashing and MSW's accusation of him suggesting HAF "to spruce up its page" is ridiculuos!{{pb}}What action are we supposed to take wrt 5B and 5D? Prevent people from wielding Wikipedia articles to dismiss others' arguments? In 5C, K3 asks tourists to avoid Manipur; so did multiple foreign governments. What are we supposed to do, here? In 5E and 5F, K3 defends Wikipedia and also asserts that all content discussion must be on wikipedia itself than Twitter, which is — ahem — good? Not one of the single X-tweets in MSW's 5X series shows K3 canvassing — if anything, K3 is asking those who challenge the Wiki narrative to come to Wikipedia and discuss content under our policies! It is bluster to connect his wiki-edits with the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded over Manipur (5G and 5H).{{pb}}It might be that K3 has a pro-Kuki bias but editors are not expected to be unbiased; unless there is a pattern of K3 abusing sources to push pro-Kuki narrative in our articles, we have nothing to see here. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 11:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Kautilya is an experienced and skilled editor, but the question here is whether someone who is so publicly involved in Kuki activism on social media should act as a gatekeeper for Kuki-Meitei-related pages. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 11:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::If you believe K3 "gatekeeps" Kuki-Meitei-related pages, please provide '''relevant on-wiki evidence'''. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 11:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::I have nothing against Kautilya, nor do I wish to find and post all the diffs that could get him in trouble. However, I have observed Kautilya favoring content that supports the Kuki community while discarding any content that goes against them, such as the recent drone-related attack I mentioned on the talk page of [[2023–2024 Manipur violence]]. You can check it out.
*:::For example, he's using "claimed" for reasons that go against the Kuki community, while removing "claimed" from the reasons involving the Kuki side of the violence. Is this NPOV? There are numerous examples like this. One paragraph simply bashed the Meitei community, portraying them as Hindutva supporters harassing Christian Kukis, completely disregarding the fact that there is a mainstream Meitei group that is not even Hindu but Sanamahist, who hates Hindus even more. Tried various times to show it as a primarly 'anti-christian conflict initiated by BJP' rather than ethnic. I’m glad someone removed it. And these are just the most recent examples—I haven’t monitored the page from the beginning, so there could be much more.
*:::The issue isn’t about being biased—every human is biased. But being biased in private and in your own mind is different from being openly biased in a public forum. When you are openly and publicly biased, and use the same name on X (formerly Twitter) as you do on Wikipedia, it raises eyebrows. A person who is not only involved in pro-Kuki activism but has also posted inflammatory remarks against the Meitei community on their X account should be scrutinized, especially since they have the most edits on these pages. It does not mater if sources he removed were bad or the sources he used were more reliable. It must be scrutinized. How is this not a red flag? I’m amazed. If it’s okay with everyone, then it’s okay with me.
*:::The person who raised the complaint might know more details about the diffs. These are just my random observations. I am not motivated to get Kautilya punished in any way. Even if he realizes and acknowledges that there might be some bias, that would be enough for me at least. I don’t know what the person who filed the complaint wants to happen with Kautilya. [[User:DangalOh|DangalOh]] ([[User talk:DangalOh|talk]]) 12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::Regarding {{tq|nor do I wish to find and post all the diffs that could get him in trouble. However, I have observed Kautilya favoring content that supports the Kuki community while discarding any content that goes against them}}, 'observations' without diffs are useless here, in the literal sense of the word, not the rheforical or offensive usage. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 13:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*There is no substance to this accusation. Editors are allowed to express opinions on twitter; that does not create a COI. Editors are allowed to point to the few legitimate avenues for paid editing. Editors are allowed to correspond with others via email. If K is violating policies with his edits, or has an actual COI, or is engaging in actual canvassing - that is, asking people to take a specific position in a discussion - then evidence of that needs to be presented. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
*I agree with Vanamonde that there is no substance to this complaint. Many of us, including myself, instinctively dislike any encouragement of paid editing, such as Kautilya's encouragement on X of using "agents" to "spruce up" one's BLP on wikipedia, mentioned in Ms Sara Welch's point 4 above. It is, however, allowed, and I definitely find Ms Sara Welch's speculations about wrongdoing in point 5 ''below'' to be ''worse'': {{tq|"Did he check with the paid editor? he did do so stealth, off-wiki? Did he ask for commission? Was he offered a commission?"}} (I presume "he did" was supposed to be "did he".) Did he ask for commission — really? Seriously, Ms Sara Welch, you should think for longer before you publish insinuations like that at this board. Things like {{tq|"Kautilya3's social media activity is closely linked to his Wikipedia activity"}} (so what?) or {{tq|"User:Kautilya3 has a history of conflict-of-interest behavior that is disruptive, that spreads disinformation, and harms en-Wikipedia"}} (evidence-free) I find hard to take seriously. Nor can I see anything wrong with identifying himself as a Wikipedian on social media (Ms Sarah Welch's point 7 below) — what's the matter with that, exactly? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 09:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC).
:*{{ping|Bishonen}} Isn't it odd that when faced with complaint from affected party who claims to be offering WP:RS and asking for a balanced NPOV biography, Kautilya3 – a key editor and gatekeeper of that organization/group biography article – is not linking [[WP:BLPCOMPLAIN]], but suggesting a paid editor? We must assume that a neutral Wikipedia editor would not be influenced by paid or unpaid editors trying to revise an article. What exactly is this Kautilya3-recommended paid editor supposed to do, that Kautilya3 will not do to the article Kautilya3 extensively edits and gatekeeps, given the same sources? On point 7 below, Kautilya3 on social media has called himself "Kuki ka Parivar" (identifying himself to be the "family" – ''parivar'' – of one side of the tragic conflict). Per WP:COI, editors are strongly discouraged to edit articles about themselves and family (or close enough to be family-like). The local newspapers, and police case I have read, name him and Wikipedia as party in a legal case. His social media account was blocked in India (and may be, still is; I do not live in India, so I do not know). All this is not any legal threat from me, just a short summary of situation in Manipur and India since you ask for more evidence. I am not linking more because of WP:OUT guidelines. Perhaps Kautilya3 can disclose and provide links so you can see how Kautilya3's Wikipedia-linked social media advocacy has and continues to affect Wikipedia in India, plus the extent of his conflict of interest. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:*:Narendra Modi, the incumbent Prime Minister of India, started the trend of having BJP supporters [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pm-modi-urges-supporters-to-remove-modi-ka-parivar-suffix-from-social-media-handles/article68277852.ece change] their social-media handles to "Modi ka parivar" during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections to show their support/allegiance to him. I presume that K3 borrows the language from this stunt but uses it ''against'' the narrative propounded by BJP (whom he feels is allied with the Meiteis, opposed to the Kukis). Now, do you suggest that everybody — from among the few million Indians — who had ever used the "Modi ka parivar" tag in their social media handles, has a COI about anything related with Indian politics esp. Modi and his political party? And that K3 has been sued in India, what shall we do? I know of no policy that guides us in dealing with editors who are sued. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 16:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:*::I haven't been "sued", at least not yet. The Manipur Police registered a complaint against me made by some one in Imphal. Similar complaints have been registered against Kuki women's leader Mary Grace Zou, Kuki People's Alliance leader William Hangshing, University of Hyderabad professor Kham Khan Suan, JNU professor Thongkholal Haokip, University of Nagaland professor Jankhomang Guite, [[National Federation of Indian Women]] which sent a fact finding team, [[Editors Guild of India]] for a similar venture and even the central paramilitary force [[Assam Rifles]]! Meanwhile, India's press freedom index ranks 161th out of 180 countries. Whenever these indices come out, the Ministry of External Affairs issues a statement claiming that these are motivated, unscientific analyses that are ill-informed. The Prime Minister gives a statement saying India is the "mother of democracy". After a couple of days of drama, it is business as usual. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 19:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:*:::Ah, thanks. I based my comments upon MSW — {{tq|.. police case I have read, name him [Kautilya3] and Wikipedia as party in a legal case.}} [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
 
=== Response by Kautilya3 ===
===Blatant edit warring===
The allegation is apparently canvassing. [[WP:CANVASSING]] states:
OsamaK has now reinserted a tag on [[:Image:AndrewSterett.jpeg]] for the sixth time since July 17. Argue respectfulness towards [[WP:3RR]] all you want but this is blatant [[WP:EDIT WAR|revert/edit warring]]. If it wasn't disruptive before, it most definitely is now. [[User:SWik78|SWik78]] <small>([[User talk:SWik78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SWik78|contribs]])</small> 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
{{tq|In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.}}
: This is so unfair. Let me be honest, before undoing the tag there, I reread [[WP:3RR]] to check if my restore is legal or not (Is 3rd or 4th illegal?). The policy says clearly: "An editor '''must not''' perform <big>more than</big> three reverts". For that reason, I restored it last time.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In the case of {{U|Vanamonde93}}'s RfA, my email record indicates that I have written to two editors, both of whom I regarded as "neutral editors" who hadn't voted till the late stages. One of them (MSW) voted in support and the other editor voted to oppose. That doesn't sound much like "canvassing", does it? I am happy to share copies of all the email exchanges on this issue with ARBCOM if necessary.
::Since it's under discussion here, and it's obviously controversial, I'd strongly recommend not tagging at all until the issue is resolved. You're essentially telling everyone here trying to discuss the matter that it doesn't matter what they say, you'll continue to edit in a manner considered disruptive by some here. And that's a problem. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::: It is simple as 1-2-3. ''Stop undoing, Stop tagging''; I stopped tagging since 19 July (Lazy to check), but Ed doesn't care about that. There is no stopping unilaterally, and if so, this is unfair.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 14:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:It's not unfair. If you read my comments carefully, you will see that I conceded that you did not breach 3RR but I do consider your reversions on the above mentioned image as constituting an edit war. 3RR does not need to be breached to constitute an edit war. And also, I think it's very condescending to other involved users to continually argue semantics about how you ''stopped tagging'' 3 days ago when you're still ''restoring'' the tags that were removed after you. There is no difference between adding a tag for the first time and hitting the "undo" button after someone removes your tag. You need to stop re-adding those tags until someone here starts agreeing with you. [[User:SWik78|SWik78]] <small>([[User talk:SWik78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SWik78|contribs]])</small> 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Again, We're in loop. It is unfair, because I didn't start it. and what about Alnokta, who agrees with me? I believe that there is no AIR with copyrights issues, and then, no one should restore my edits before ending of discus because he is ignoring rules (Wow!), they even want to block me as a troll, becuase they ignore rules!--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::We're only in a loop because you refuse to recognize the absurdity of your actions. Under your theory, your tags would remain in place while discussion takes place, until, finally, the clock ticks down and the images are deleted -- this is ridiculous on its face. In fact, the proper procedure, since your tagging is conroversial, is for the original ''status quo ante'' (meaning the images in '''''untagged''''' condition) to be preserved while the discussion proceeds. If the discussion goes in your favor, then you can reapply the tags, and the images will be deleted. In fact, though, with one exception, the discussion is going against '''''both''''' your actions '''''and''''' the necessity or advisability of your tags. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 15:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: Breaking tagging every time, everywhere is a well known story. Dear Ed. If you really want to change, open an issue, write a 'bata' policy and it may applied.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:With the [[Tschaikovsky]] picture, it's indeed possible that a 20-year-old photographer in the 1890s could have been alive late enough to renew the copyright. For the Sterret picture, though, it's not physically possible for a copyright to be in force. Hence, tagging it is disruptive.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::I'd also like to point out that in his latest round of mass reversions (using Twinkle), the editor has accused those who are removing his unwarranted tags of breeching [[WP:POINT]]. Of course, no "point" is being made here. What is happening is that editors are attempting to prevent useful images from being lost to the project. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 15:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::: It wasn't using Twinkle, it was using my own script. Anyways (let me skip POINT issue), Let us have a cup of tea in #wikipedia-en. Could you come there?--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 16:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC):
::::I don't do IRC. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 16:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:Perhaps my view will be discounted because I take a relatively liberal position of the use of NFCC in interpreting the rules--while accepting them, of course--but it does seem to me that Osama is not in the right of it here, and is taking an over-literal view of things--as is easy to do when using any sort of automated tool. In any case, to insist on large scale tagging over multiple objections is disruptive, and should not be continued until there is some consensus that it is being done appropriately. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks for adding your option. Wikimedia policies are illustrating each others. In Wikimedia Commons, we delete all unsourced image no care if it is (PD-old, PD-art, etc..); Everyone knows that. Are we ''taking an over-literal view of things''? No for sure! Another point: Our policy says clearly about source for all images, and we must apply it to be compatible with Wikimedia Commons' one, do you believe that problem when bots uploaded many PDs from English Wikipedia without source? That's illegal in both policies.
:: Finally, I think we had a long discussion there about this issue, and we may have to deep think about wider discussion to review image policy, I think some people there cannot understand it well.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I Think we've hit the crux of the problem here: you're applying Commons' methods to Wikipedia, which you should see by now is not going to work. If you want a wider discussion on that, go to [[Wikipedia talk:NFCC]]. In the meantime, please stop your tagging as it '''is''' disruptive on Wikipedia. &mdash; <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, you're wrong. I just give an example for the answer of a question from DGG. Please, read my reply again. Another point, you have to understand that these images are NOT NFCC and we cannot discs them in your former link, note that not I who started the long discussion there. Last point, I have ''frieze'' my tagged since 19 July.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::The problem here is that a strict and dogmatic reading of policy is overriding both rational decision making and what's best for the project. Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to be a repository for policy, policy exists to make Wikipedia better, and if it's not doing that, then rational consideration of the situation needs to prevail. '''''If an edit, of any kind, is not <u>helping</u> the project, then it's <u>hurting</u> the project.''''' The project would be diminished by losing the use of those images, which are clearly public domain, and therefore enforcing the strict letter of the law is detrimental and should not be done. '''''We are not here to enforce policy, we are here to make an encyclopedia.''''' [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::: I ''fully'' agree with you. Images '''''lock like''''' Public Domain, but for more trusting, more verifiability, and better academic usage policy requests sources, this is not a bad read of it! I want to note all people there, that [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] has a very great contributions for fixing sources. Just take a look for these as examples: [[:Image:Bellayguillaume.jpg]] and [[:Image:AnthonyWayne.jpeg]]. We're all believe that sources is well needed, let's try to fix all of them rather than long boring discussion, that will improves trusting of our wiki (That anyone can edit!).--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sounds like there's only one solution that will make OsamaK happy. Delete every PD image from Commons and Wikipedia, and let him relocate and find all of them, and replace them. He won't of course, leaving us with a dearth of objects, and the continued insistence that PD needs attribution. It doesn't, per the [[Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.]] decision quoted ad nauseum in prior similar situations. This is simply a copyright activist gaming our rules to make a point. He should be charged with personally replacing every single image he tags and succeeds in deleting, and if he refuses, banned from the project to preclude further disruption. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 22:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
: Not really :), And we should do the thing makes project better, not OsamaK happy! An image + clear source + correct licenses = Good information, Kept; That's making me happy, making the project better. I'm very clear from first, and you're trying to put the ball in my court, and showing me as a troll. You still revolve around a single wrong point, called "Ignore all rules, always".--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::Well, I havent' called you a troll at all, but that I managed to SHOW you as one makes me feel like an amazing success to hear you admit it without any prompting from me! However, this notion that every image is not really PD because of titanic counterfeiting conspiracies whose sole aim is to discredit Wikipedia is asinine. Unless you've got proof that most PD images are actually copyrighted counterfeis, I think you really should find other goals in life, maybe not on Wikipedia, because the amount of blatant and disgusting BAD faith you are heaping upon every uploader to the project is a serious issue, as is your constant disruptions to wikipedia. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::: Why are you talking like that? Stop your bad offend to me! I'm a volunteer here .. Come Together "v-o-l-u-n-t-e-e-r" easy, no? People who want to help wikipedia of real, don't attack such as yours! You're unable to rating my volunteering. It is enough to me to be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] (You're not) and away of personal attacks (You're not too). Timeout. I (And others) lose my (And their) time here. Sorry to say that, they do not you have plans to rectify the situation on the ground.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 06:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::WHy are you talking like that? Half in broken english, half in american slang like 'rectify the situation on the ground'? I am able to 'rating your volunteering'. It's lousy. You violate AGF all over with these taggings. As noted below, you tagged self-made images fully released per the GFDL just because you didn't find a three word phrase, even though the meaning of those three words was already in the text for that image. I think you lack a full command of the language, and that inability to read english fluently leads you to tag a lot of images that don't need tagging. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::OsamaK's bot-like or bot-using tagging or images is IMHO annoying. [[User:Tuxraider reloaded]] uploaded a pic. Although he had tagged it as created himself and released under the GFDL, Osama threatened to delete it and templated Tux's talk page because he hadn't needlessly also added a mere three words or something to effectively say what the tag already said- that he made it himself. As a new editor, such automatised behaviour would seem unfriendly, nit-picking and does not reflect well on Osama. If someone just left a brief message rather than a template, it would be much friendlier but of course that would take too much time which is being spent on such gripping activites of taking policy so literally and retentively. [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::: {{tl|GFDL}} means nothing about the creator. You have to add the creator when you putting an image under GFDL terms.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm just really starting to get ticked off by his incessant claims of ''I stopped tagging on July 19'' (or variations on that statement) when he is still very cleary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:General-jackson-photo.jpg&diff=227576336&oldid=227568705 tagging] PD images for deletion. Why do you bother saying you stopped tagging? This last image was tagged today. It's really frustrating trying to have some sort of a constructive discussion with you when you're talking to everyone in here like they're complete idiots. [[User:SWik78|SWik78]] <small>([[User talk:SWik78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SWik78|contribs]])</small> 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
: Did I tag it as no-source?--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:I also wonder why sometimes [[User:OsamaK]]'s comments are idiomatic English (or very close to it), and other times they look very much like they were written in another language and passed through a mechanical translator. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::Maybe I need a second cup of coffee this morning but I fail to see what your point is with this last statement. [[User:SWik78|SWik78]] <small>([[User talk:SWik78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SWik78|contribs]])</small> 15:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, it's primarily an observation more than a point, but the wierdness of some of the language does make it difficult at times to figure out what is being said. And, I have to say, I do generally have a bit of a problem with people editing English Wikipedia without sufficient command of English to do so. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, and the editor does seem to focus primarily on image-work, but it's something of a sore point for me, so perhaps I'm more sensitive to it than others. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I see. I can't say you're wrong in your thinking but, If I may, I'd like to suggest to keep focus on the issue at hand (OsamaK's controversial image tagging) rather than letting the community lose sight by branching out into general complaints and grievances against OsamaK. In the end, we're discussing the editor's actions, not the editor, right? [[User:SWik78|SWik78]] <small>([[User talk:SWik78|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SWik78|contribs]])</small> 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Point taken. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Out of topic.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 22:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Regarding the supposed "canvassing" on Twitter, I was pointing out a [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1687550188590624770 permitted avenue] for editing Wikipedia, suggesting a [https://x.com/Kautilya33/status/1687469074400288769 paid editor] who had already established her credentials here. If people out in the society believe that Wikipedia content is inaccurate or biased or whatever, I would definitely tell them they are wrong, and to challenge them to come and correct it if they think something is wrong. We are an open platform that everybody can edit. Everything is above board. The people complaining are essentially carrying out their own propaganda in the outside world trying to defame Wikipedia, without having the gumption to come and challenge us here. If they can't do it themselves, let them hire somebody who can. We are not afraid.
I believe this discussion should stop and another one be started somewhere else (everybody knows where; policy talk page). Your stances vis-à-vis policy application are clearly polarized and obviously you cannot solve that here. My opinion is that all parties stop doing what they have been doing and discuss the issue in a constructive manner at the policy talk page. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
: I said that before. Someones are still thinking that my edits are illegal in their ''own'' view.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 07:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually your tagging is being described as '''''disruptive''''', not "illegal" -- in fact, the point has been made repeatedly that the problem with your tagging is that it's been done with an extremely narrow and dogmatic view of policy without taking into account the specific circumstances of images that are patently public domain. Therefore while your tags are "legal" in the sense that you can quote chapter and verse from policy to support them, they are '''''harmful to the project''''' because they will result in the loss of useful and available images.<p>More to the point, '''''multiple editors''''' in this thread have objected to your actions, while you are pretty much alone in your defense of your actions. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Good that you had said that but I don't think people describe your tagging as illegal. Anyway, please discuss it in a constructive manner there but the tagging/reverting cycle should stop and not just temporarily. After all, we are not in a rush to tag/untag all of the disputed images. Discussions come first and, of course, they have to stay on topic as per SWik78. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 09:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Regarding my twitter activity in general, we all know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and twitter is a micro-blogging site. Nobody can confuse one for the other. In an encyclopedia we summarise reliable sources. On a blog site, we write our own views, however well-informed or otherwise they might be. That goes to my ''freedom of expression'', which Wikipedia has no right to curtail. In future, I might become a public intellectual, giving talks, writing articles, or anything else I please. All of those would be conducted in accordance with the policies and principles established for ''those media'', not according to Wikipedia policies. The real world is not an "encyclopedia".
===Additional images ready for tagging by [[User:OsamaK]]===
I'd like to point out that the editor in question has about 400 other images lined up and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OsamaK/Tagging ready to be tagged], and that keeping things in the ''status quo ante'' should apply to these images as well, not just the ones that have been under discussion. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
: Correction: Ready for ''reviewing''.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 10:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, you '''''review''''' the images you tag? Then why is it that I just fixed two images that you tagged in which the uploader had used the non-free FUR but neglected to add the non-free fair use license? To an editor like yourself doing bulk image work, it should have been obvious what the problem was, and fixing them would take just about as much time as tagging them and posting notices. So why didn't you? (I'm referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BenHecht.jpg this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lederer3.jpg this].) It's really very rude to tag an image that you can easily and in good conscience fix, and detrimental to the project as well, since you take the chance that the uploader won't see your notice in time and the image will be deleted. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 12:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Lest anyone think this is an ancillary issue, it's not. Both this case and the larger one of bulk tagging clearly PD images for deletion shows a '''''lack of good editorial judgment''''' and a preference for rote activities over rational evaluation of what's best for the encyclopedia. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: Talking with you is useless. Did you have a quick checking of tagging page? Tell me if it is including ''ANY'' un-free images.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::After seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:BenHecht.jpg&diff=227819241&oldid=227811336] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lederer3.jpg&diff=227819847&oldid=227811976], I agree also that OsamaK should not be tagging images, as he is obviously getting the tags wrong. Those two images were very easy to save, and instead he got them tagged for deletion. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::: It is uploader job, all these images was uploaded on 24-hours or less. That's meaning: the uploader will definitely see the note. The images was without a copyright tag, and I added {{tl|nld}}, tell me if I did a mistake should ''let me not be tagging images''.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::I disagree with the idea that fixing images is any one person's job - after all, the encyclopedia is a '''''collective project'''''. Yes, there are situations where the uploader is the only person who can provide the information needed, but there are others -- and the two images I mentioned above are clearly cases of them -- where it is '''''absolutely clear, without a doubt''''' what the uploader intended, and in that circumstance '''''any editor''''' can make the correction, just as any editor can correct a typographical error or a broken link. You, as the person who noticed the problem, have an obligation to '''''fix the problem''''' if you are going to do anything at all about it, not just to tag it and foist the problem on somebody else. (If, indeed, they see the notice in time.) [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Can we just block him? He is fully aware that his actions are extremely disruptive, and frankly, violate [[WP:POINT]] and [[WP:COMMON]] because he knows full well that he could fix some of those, but won't, and as such, there's no good reason for him to be allowed to continue. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::If he'll agree to stop tagging PD images, and instead work to help uploaders fix them, and fix obviously repairable image problems himself, then there's no real need for a block, I would say. If he won't agree to that, then I don't see any other solution, really. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::He hasn't agreed in four days, why would he start now? BLOCK. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 16:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Another piece of rudeness: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227846286 this edit summary, in Arabic]. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::: Just shut up, talking with you over for ever. You're not exist. As long as you're not civil.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::: Block for this is obvious. He's continuing to tag, continuing to edit in opposition to consensus and wide community disapproval. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Osama, you said you've already stopped it and agreed to go discuss it at the policy talk page. There's clear consensus here that you stop tagging and discuss. It doesn't seem that you are stopping as I understand from links Enric provided. You are also dismissing calls for fixing some instead of tagging them. This is not how stuff should be done. Discussion is above any questionable action. So you better stop and take this issue to the policy talk page for serious discussions. Failing to do that would lead to a block.
:Ed, the Arabic edit summary translates to "time is gold" and yes that is a bit uncalled for but you would better have avoided focusing on the issue of English. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::: OK Mr. FayssalF. You may could be our [[WP:JACK|Jack]] ;). Just a minor note: I have not started this issue here. So, I'll not moved it.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yes, I ran it through Google Translator and got the meaning -- but I disagree somewhat that it's not relevant. Sure, there's a '''''policy issue''''', and that can be discussed at the proper place, but there's also an issue of an editor's '''''behavior''''', and it seems to be that it's all of a piece: tagging an image instead of doing an easy fix, tagging PD images about which there's little or no copyright concern (whatever their source) and posting an edit summary in a language which the majority of editors cannot read. Taken together, they indicate a lack of judgment about what the right thing to do is, and a certain rudeness that is either deliberate or the result of lack of understanding or cultural differences. Either way, they don't indicate that this editor should be doing that kind of work. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Having said that, I would like to maintain that all my public-facing activitiy is consistent with what I do on Wikipedia, where I base my views on high-quality sources and evidence, and maintaining "neutrality" as we understand by [[WP:NPOV]]. The only difference is that, on Wikipedia, I cannot draw my own conclusions and write my own views, whereas in the outer world, I can.
I've left a friendly warning for OsamaK. I will leave a stronger warning if he carries on with tagging PD images. As for language, it can indeed be a worry. In my work I often see businesses lose time and make wrong decisions because of small interpretation and translation mistakes made by highly educated people. Good faith users should never be put down (or put out) over how they write English on talk pages but there is nothing untowards about noting that an editor's use of English may be slowing down or thwarting communication. I should also say that OsamaK's take on image policy may not only be swayed by linguistics, but by cultural background. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
: OK. I hope to skip the level of ''stronger warning''. Thanks for you advice.--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::Just to be clear: Does that mean you agree not to restore any of the removed tags, or tag any other PD images while this discussion is ongoing? [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 17:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::So long as OsamaK is only tagging images that in fact have no source, then his actions are correct and he shouldn't have to stop. If he's making errors, though, that's another matter. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry, I disagree, and your opinion is clearly not the consensus of the participants in this discussion. Dogmatic insistence on following policy to the letter is not the best course of action in this situation, but whether or not it is or not, he should hold off on any further tagging of this type while the discussion is ongoing, since reverting the tags put the images at risk. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ed, the best way to prevent these images from being "at risk" is simply to provide the required sourcing information. It doesn't matter what "consensus" is among the handful of participants here. For one thing, local consensus does not override the larger consensus of site policy. If you want to change the policy, make a proposal at the policy pages. For another, consensus cannot override legal issues such as copyright. See [[WP:CON#Exceptions]] for what I'm talking about. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::(ec)Yes, except some of those images have been up for years, and some of the uploaders are no longer active, or are semi-active. So, we'll just snap our fingers and like magic the sourcing information will be provided? No, a good proportion of those images once tagged are doing to be deleted, and you know it.<p>As for changing policy -- this is not essentially a policy issues, it's a question of how policy is enforced. Is it enforced like an automaton without any consideration of circumstance or effect, or is it enforced rationally with what's best of the project in mind? Clearly, both you and OsamaK are in the former camp. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I would submit that something can be in good faith and arguably correct under policy and still be disruptive. Correct or not, these edits are clearly controversial. And you shouldn't do something that is controversial on a mass-automated edit level, even if you think that you are correct under the policy because it is disruptive. Now is the time for discussion, and I think it is imprudent to encourage OsamaK to continue as he has without addressing concerns. -[[User:Chunky Rice|Chunky Rice]] ([[User talk:Chunky Rice|talk]]) 20:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, that's sensible. With something like image sourcing, though, I believe it's more than "arguably correct", the policies are basically there in black and white that the images must be sourced. Not a lot of room for interpretation, though I'm open to any dissenting views. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::How can you possibly be "open" to dissent, when you're flat out saying that there's nothing to discuss and nothing to be done? Please, your pose is killing me. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Ed, please don't put words in my mouth. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::<s>Kelly, please don't deny the essence of what you've said below.</s> [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(out)Alright, let's stop. I think we can both agree this is getting us nowhere. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
[[WP:NPOV]] states, inter alia, {{tq|Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another.}} I believe I do that. If people think I don't, they are welcome to challenge me wherever they find such issues. ANI is not the place for it. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
===Statement by uninvolved [[User:Kelly|Kelly]]===
If I could, I'd like to make a couple of points:
#Regarding tagging images for deletion that are easily fixed - yes, absolutely this should be done whenever possible. I wish we could tag images without sources in a way that did not place them in the deletion queue. There used to be a tag for this (it was called "PD-no-source" or something like that), but the template was deleted after a community discussion because Wikipedia policy is that images must have a source or face deletion.
#It's an unfortunate fact of wiki-life that many (most?) image uploaders will not address questions of copyright/sourcing until and unless the image is facing deletion. Not a condemnation, it's just that are probably more interesting things they would like to do than jump through the legal/policy hoops.
#Osama is correct that images need a source, regardless of how "obvious" it may seem that they are public domain. There are several reasons for this...the primary one is '''not''' that we going to get sued for using an old photograph. First, just because something is old or was obviously made before 1923 does not automatically mean that it is public domain. The key fact is that copyright is established when a work is '''published''', not when it was made. I have run across photos from the American Civil War that were still under copyright, because they were put away in a family album somewhere after being taken, only to be published by the heirs decades later. It's even more problematic with paintings. First, you don't know a painting is old just because the subject of the painting is long dead. People are still making paintings of Jesus Christ and Elvis Presley, even though they've been dead a long time. If someone made a painting in 1803 and put it a private home, and in 2008 the great-great-great-grandaughter of the painter displayed to the public (i.e. "published" it) for the first time, the painting would be copyrighted.
#Why is this important? Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for free information and media that anyone can modify and use for any purpose. If someone complains to Wikipedia that we are violating their copyright, it is very easy for us to instantly remove the offending work. However, if someone trusts our statements about copyright, and re-uses our content in a published book, it's not very easy for them to rectify the problem after the book has been published, and they would likely face a financial liability because of our error. This would damage our credibility as a free media resource.
 
#Joshua Jonathan continues his inappropriate straw man arguments. On the disinformation stated in [Case Evidence 7] above, Joshua Jonathan alleges, "I can't see much fault in that, even less "disinformation." He states this without quoting the source, or providing any other evidence. In contrast, in [Case Evidence 7] above, I quoted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ms_Sarah_Welch/ArbCom_K3 the source], explained thru links above how this is disinformation, showed with a diff that Kautliya3 added it to Wikipedia, and included evidence that the social media account Kautilya3–the–Wikipedian perpetuated the disinformation in the social media.
Just a few thoughts I had. But please, could everyone calm down and assume some good faith? I think we can all agree that OsamaK is not trying to destroy the encyclopedia by deleting good content. And we can also all agree that people who upload images they sincerely believe are public domain, but lack all the sourcing details, are not criminally-minded copyright violators intent on stealing copyrighted work. I'm not sure why the rhetoric gets so heated over images, but I'm sure a path can be found that satisfies both policy and the community's etiquetee norms. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
#For [Case Evidence 8], Joshua Jonathan asks for more concrete evidence. Kautilya3 is the top author–editor of [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/2023%E2%80%932024_Manipur_violence 2023–2024 Manipur Violence] article. He is the top author–editor of [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Kuki_people Kuki people] article, and so on. For evidence of gate-keeping, see the edit history of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023%E2%80%932024_Manipur_violence&action=history&offset=&limit=500 Manipur violence article]. Its edit history shows that other than being the top author-editor, Kautilya3 has reverted numerous edits and repeatedly controlled what stays in the article and what does not ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023%E2%80%932024_Manipur_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1243160388 J1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023%E2%80%932024_Manipur_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1168720662 J2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023%E2%80%932024_Manipur_violence&diff=prev&oldid=1168725843 J3], etc). Kautliya3 – whose conflict of interest, celebration of violence against one side, and advocacy in social media is presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Case above] in the case evidence – has been authoring and filtering what information stays in that Wikipedia article and what is thereby communicated by Wikipedia to its audience. That is gate-keeping.
:::It sounds to me as though a "pending source" disclaimer tag for these unsourced PD images could be helpful. As I said on OsamaK's talk page and as Kelly said above, these images ''should'' have source information since PD is indeed swayed by date of first publication, not creation. It is also true that ''most'' of these images are clearly in the public domain and it would be disruptive to embark on a mass deletion until a consensus is reached over how this will be dealt with. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
#Kautilya3, in his statement, inherently accepts that he emailed me (and one more person) for a vote to elect Vanamonde93 as admin. Then he spins and covers up the whole truth. In that email, Kautilya3's intent in asking for the vote is clear. He wanted Vanamonde93 to do something after getting elected (his email says so). He was also troubled by Vanamonde93 getting hammered by oppose votes, and he cast aspersions on the oppose voters without evidence. Those statements show Kautilya's non-neutral intent. Those emails show his disruptive off-wiki activity for years. Obviously, Kautilya3 knew Vanamonde93 well before the latter was nominated for admin election. He was keen on getting him elected by whatever means necessary. Kautilya3 has repeatedly violated [[WP:CANVASS]] off-wiki. For what it is worth, I have emails that show that his attempt to help Vanamonde93 fraudulently get elected was not the first and last time Kautilya3 canvassed off-wiki. It would help if Kautilya3 self-disclosed all off-wiki campaigning, vote-stacking and stealth canvassing he has done in the last 8 years, with all Wikipedia-editors.
: Just a thing: fair view, [[User:Kelly|Kelly]].--[[User:OsamaK|O]][[User talk:OsamaK|sama]][[Special:Contributions/OsamaK|K]] 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
#On Manipur violence and social media advocacy as a Wikipedian, Kautilya3 should also disclose and provide links to all his off-wiki videos, interviews, other social media accounts and off-wiki activity where he identifies or positions himself as Wikipedian. He should also disclose any off-wiki disputes and cases where he has identified himself as a Wikipedian, where his role in Wikipedia has been questioned, cited and has identified Wikipedia along with him as a party in the dispute or case. The community can then weigh if and how much harm Kautilya3 has done to Wikipedia.
::::Gwen, it's not that images ''should'' have a source specified - they ''must'' have a source specified. This ultimately traces back to [[WP:C]] and [[WP:V]], two of the five pillars, and is outlined more specifically in [[WP:IUP]] (in boldface right at the beginning) and [[WP:CITE#IMAGE]]. The policy that OsamaK has been following is [[WP:CSD]] criteria I4, which says that images with unknown source will be deleted after seven days, '''regardless of when uploaded'''. This is why the old disclaimer tag was deleted before. Perhaps OsamaK could go about this more diplomatically, but his actions are solidly based in longstanding policy. It's wrong to condemn him - we wouldn't sanction someone who spent their time tagging articles on bands for speedy deletion under CSD A7.
#Some comments above assert that paid editing of Wikipedia is allowed. True. But there are few other important requirements that apply to paid editing – no misinformation and full clear disclosure are among those requirements. Further, these comments also miss the context. Kautilya3 is one of the [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Hindu_American_Foundation two top author-editors] and one of the gate-keepers of that article in which Kautilya3 is recommending the affected party to hire paid editor (friend?) to help change an article that he watches, controls and actively edits. Did he check with the paid editor? he did do so stealth, off-wiki? Did he ask for commission? Was he offered a commission? Should he have disclosed Wikipedia's COI, paid editing and other guidelines to the affected party?
::::For those that are calling for OsamaK to be blocked, we don't block good-faith contributors who are following policy without even the benefit of a Request for Comment - I urge anyone who has a grievance to follow dispute resolution. (This would be appropriate if, as stated, OsamaK is tagging images erroneously - '''not''' just for correctly tagging images with no source.) Also, I think it's unjust to warn image taggers for what they're doing, when we're not similarly warning people who don't include required information on their image uploads, or who refuse to go back and fix this information when asked to do so. In those cases, the taggers are following policy, the uploaders are not. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
#Kautilya3 did not show why he grossly misrepresented the Michael Lunminthang source. Kautilya3's response did not offer a defense for the disinformation he fabricated about the "description of Kuki-country", an unsupported lie he repeatedly peddled on social media (see example links in the Case Evidence above).
:::::::::Kelly, I was aware of the word choice between ''should'' and ''must''. I never said OsamaK was "tagging the images erroneously." This is an implementation worry and weak implementations against consensus can be disruptive, hence the warning. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 20:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
#Kautilya3, and Vanamonde93 above, misunderstand this case. This is a case not about Kautilya3's right to express opinions on X/Twitter, social media, make videos, or exercise his other human rights. The case is about Kautilya's extensive violation of Wikipedia's [[WP:COI]] behavioral guideline. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Case shown evidence above] that Kautilya3 identifies himself as a Wikipedian on social media, he is deeply involved on one side of the Manipur conflict, he actively advocates for that one side, disparages the other side, he has interest and external relationships in the Manipur conflict, he celebrates Manipur violence with "Manipur is not burning any more! The Valley of Manipur is burning! This makes me strangely happy" and "Let the crooks stew in their own juices." (for those unaware of Manipur, the side that Kautilya3 disdains and disparages in his social media posts generally live in the valley; while the side he advocates for generally live outside of the valley). Wikipedia guidelines say that '''editors should not "edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships'''."
::::::::::I understand, Gwen, thank you. But a few people upset about a policy does not a consensus make. My sole point is that OsamaK shouldn't be warned if his actions are within policy, which I believe they may be. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:{{Cquote|quote=
::::::::::::The pith is, following policy to the letter, whilst skirting common sense, can be highly disruptive. Most of these images are ''not'' copyright violations, yet they should indeed be sourced. Mass deletion would clearly be disruptive unless an overwhelming consensus for this action shows up. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 20:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, [...] and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. [...] COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. [...]
::::::Kelly, you are clearly '''''not''''' an "uninvolved editor" except in the most restricted sense that you haven't participated in this particular discussion until this point. What you have, in fact, managed to do, is to take a situation that seemed to be moving not to a resolution, but to a place where some profitable discussion could take place, and thrown a whole lot of fuel on the fire, and then fanned the flames.<p>Your actions are regrettable, since they obscure what is the main point here: images which are valuable to the project, and almost entirely certainly in the public domain, were in danger of being lost because an editor chose to follow by rote the dictates of policy as if it was handed down on tablets of stone, instead of using his own rational facilities to evaluate the circumstances and adjust his behavior accordingly. You may think that robotic following of policy without the slightest consideration is laudable, but I don't, and I'm much more interested in what's best for the project than anything else.<p>I was planning on engaging what I thought was an interested editor's view of the situation, so thanks for revealing your agenda before I bothered to. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
|author=[[WP:COI]]}}
:::::::"Dogmatic deletionist"?{{fact}} Ed, I would vastly prefer to keep the images. I have stated that, if the image problems can be fixed by the tagger, they should be fixed by the tagger. My point is that we shouldn't demonize people for following policy that is pretty clear-cut without making some attempt to change the policy, or to demonstrate that the person is not following the policy. You're making this way more personal than it needs to be. And so far I haven't heard any arguments as to why sources for the images can't simply be provided. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:[[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 05:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Just saw your reference to the participants in this discussion as a "lynch mob" over on [[User talk:OsamaK]], and your advice to him to go ahead and tag orphaned PD images because no one will notice, so please don't tell me how you would "vastly prefer" to keep images. If you prefer to keep them '''''then don't tag them''''', instead work with the uploaders to fix them, or fix them yourself if you can. But, in any case, you've pretty much blown any good faith multiple times now. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
* {{tq|my email record indicates that I have written to two editors, both of whom I regarded as "neutral editors" who hadn't voted till the late stages}} - while I don't know if it's enough to require sanctions, I definitely disagree that this is sufficient to justify the sorts of emails you sent. Even if ''you personally'' consider the editors neutral, that's a subjective judgment that other editors could reasonably dispute - and by notifying them via email, in a non-transparent way, you made it impossible for anyone else to raise that objection. (It was only a coincidence that you happened to send it to someone who raised the issue.) Per [[WP:INAPPNOTE]], secret canvassing is inappropriate for this reason. More generally, I would personally advise against targeted notifications of any sort - no matter how certain you are that they're "neutral", the fact is that when there's a significant dispute, people involved in that dispute are generally going to disagree on what neutrality looks like. Someone can easily end up going "all the other people I'm in a dispute with are biased POV-pushers; I'm going to select a crowd of ''neutral'' people to counteract them!" - and it's easy to see how this can cause problems. But all else aside you ''must'' do it openly, allowing the people you're in a dispute with to see it and raise any objections - not over email. Your simple assertion that you're only contacting people you consider neutral is not enough. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::So I guess it's your opinion that if I mispell something in an article, I'm the only one who can fix it, right? After all, I'm the one who uploaded that mistake, so the thing to do is not to correct any mspellings you come across, but instead tag them as being mispellings, notify the uploader that their edit is in danger of being deleted, and then 7 days later, if they haven't fixed the mispelling, revert the edit? [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:* Exactly. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ed, the "lynch mob" reference is tongue-in-cheek, and anyone who has worked with image tagging would understand it as such. If you were offended I apologize. I didn't say to tag orphaned images because nobody would notice, I said do it because it does not damage the encyclopedia. And so far as I can see, OsamaK '''has''' tried to work with the uploaders to fix the images, by notifying them of the sourcing problems, and letting them know they have at least a week to fix them. It's the only path allowed him by current site policy and processes. I'm sorry for blowing away your assumption of good faith, it wasn't intentional. Your misspelling reference seems to me to be hyperbole. As I said three times now, if the tagger can fix the problem they should, but with image uploads, often only the uploader knows the source. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Kelly,Thanks you're{{U|Aquillion}}. stirringI thingsagree upentirely. hereThose bywere callingstill thisearly discussiondays afor "lynchme mob"on or that OsamaK is being "demonizedWikipedia." NeitherI iswouldn't true,do pleasesuch stop thea namething callingtoday. -- [[User:Gwen GaleKautilya3|Gwen GaleKautilya3]] ([[User talk:Gwen GaleKautilya3|talk]]) 2016:0708, 2520 JulySeptember 20082024 (UTC)
:::* {{U|Aquillion}}, Kautilya3 had already been editing Wikipedia for 2 years at the time he sent that stealth email for vote. His stealth off-wiki canvassing continued for many years thereafter. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::No offense intended - apologies. I'd be greatly appreciative if you also asked others in this conversation to tone back their rhetoric, thanks. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
===Discussion===
::::Ok :) Yep, everyone, please stick spot on to the topic with neutral wording, skirt needless characterizations, more'll get done here if this happens. The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways of dealing with these two contrary, good faith notions, trying not to gut the encyclopedia's images in the meantime. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:[[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]], I have read this this entire complaint, though I haven't looked at every diff. And my impression is that this doesn't look like a typical case for ANI but the evidence page for an ARBCOM case. There is just too much going on here, editors browsing this noticeboard can't respond to every claim you are making. These charges seem much more suitable at ARBCOM than ANI. I realize that you have already compiled a lot of content but I don't think this is a series of accusations that can be resolved at ANI. ANI is just not set up for careful review of this much evidence. If you wish to pursue this at Arbitration, I would take it to ARBCOM and make a case request. Also prioritize, you are given a limited number of words there so just hit the highlights and, if the case is accepted, you can get into the details when you present your evidence. However, given the limited response you have gotten at ANI so far, I'm not sure how far you want to take this investigation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::With respect, Gwen, I don't see how the issue can be solved here. I suggest that the discussion either be moved to [[WT:IUP]] (if it is the image sourcing policy that is disputed) or to Requests for Comment (if it is OsamaK's behavior that is disputed). I don't think either is clear-cut enough to resolve in a conversation here. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks Liz. I wanted to try ANI as the first step. Will distill it and try it at ArbCom. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 06:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::It would seem, from your point of view, that neither discussion can possibly be productive since (1) the rules is the rules and (2) Osama was just following the rules. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::You could also consider emailing ArbCom directly if there is private evidence that you want to share. Even the case request page may be ill-equipped to handle a complaint that relies on off-wiki evidence. '''[[User:Pinguinn|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #00FFFF;"><span style="color:#000000;">Pinguinn</span></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk: Pinguinn|<span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #00FFFF;"><span style="color:#000000;">🐧</span></span>]]''' 03:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ed, that's the way I feel from the conversation so far. I didn't say my mind couldn't be changed if evidence the other way were provided. :)
:I did read through all the 'evidence' such as it is above, summary: its basically crap. This shouldnt go to arbcom (like everything else) unless the community is unable to solve a problem, and there is an overwhelming lack of a demonstrated problem that needs resolving here, let alone compelling evidence to support that Kautilya is causing the issue. This amounts to writing a wall of text as an end-run around providing clear diffs supporting policy-violating behaviour. Its accusation after accusation with, at best, a 'They are biased' argument. This should be closed unless something substantive can be presented. Not pushed to arbcom because people do not want to read. Its been designed to make you not want to read it. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 11:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::(ec) Kelly, I didn't say it could be resolved here. However, a mass deletion against a consensus at ANI would clearly be disruptive until a clear community consensus has been found. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:*Since when did Wikipedia community agree that secret canvassing by email during admin elections is okay or encouraged? FWIW, the secret email canvassing by Kautilya3 has included email asking me to [[WP:GANG]] up on a very experienced Wikipedia editor, an email to Joshua Jonathan and copied to me that cheered what Kautilya3 called "nice lynching" of a Wikipedia editor, etc. Given Kautilya3's social media activity on the tragic Manipur conflict where he advertises himself as Wikipedian – social media activity he has not yet disclosed fully and clearly on Wikipedia – should Wikipedia abandon [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:ADVOCACY]] guidelines? If you feel all this is okay or WP:COI does not apply here, I will love to read your arguments. (FWIW, please take comments of Joshua Jonathan, Tranga Bellam, Vanamonde93 above with a grain of salt, as they are part of the [[WP:CAMP]] that Kautilya3 has either copied to in emails to me or has claimed, in his emails to me, to have had off-wiki discussions about disputes, RfC, en-Wiki editors etc; they are close: you can also check their on-wiki user talk pages and co-editing patterns; IOW, these are not independent, uninvolved en-Wiki editors). [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Gwen, I understand. But I don't understand what permanent consensus will result from a conversation here at [[WP:ANI]] if there is no corresponding change in policy. A look back through the archives will show this has been discussed before. The normal result is that an image patroller finally throws his/her hands up and gives up on the copyright policy. Situation resolved until the next time. I suppose if the objective is to force OsamaK to stop tagging images the situation could be resolved here. :) I guess the questions boil down to éither ''Did OsamaK violate Wikipedia policy?'' or ''Is the image sourcing policy bad for the encyclopedia?'' The answer tells us which forum we should go to for a real resolution of the problem, rather than yet another flamewar. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:*:What's the date of that email to me? [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't agree with your take on this, Kelly. I don't think OsamaK has strayed from Wikipedia policy. Nor have I seen any hint of opinion that the image policy is "bad" for Wikipedia. As I said before, this is an implementation flaw and if, after being warned there are worries expressed in a thread at ANI, an editor were to carry on with a good faith mass deletion, ''even by following a close take on undisputed policy'', this would indeed be disruption. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:*:::::::::WhatFound wouldit; be3 yourjan suggested2019. alternateIt approach?was (questiona tocomment anyone)by K3 on an ANI-thread regarding an editor he dislikes; it was not canvassing. [[User:KellyJoshua Jonathan|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype CorsivaForte;cursorcolor:helpblack">'''Kelly'''Joshua Jonathan</span>]] <sup>- [[User talk:KellyJoshua Jonathan|hi<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!]]</supspan>]] 2016:3609, 2520 JulySeptember 20082024 (UTC)
::*Having off-wiki discussions is not prohibited. Neither is social media activity related to editing on wikipedia. Or are you suggesting we ban every female editor who edits during WIR and socials about it? Because your COI accusations so far are that level of nonsense. I would also suggest a description of an email copied to multiple people as 'secret' is a bit overblown. You dont copy multiple people you barely know on the internet in on an email if you want to keep it a secret. Not unless you are an idiot. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 20:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227865003 I've already said what I thought about that]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::*I received numerous emails from Kautilya3. Very few were copied. All the rest were one to one. The emails with secret canvassing, such as the stealth vote request for Vanamonde93, were one to one, and not copied to anyone. Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines on [[WP:CANVASS]] and [[WP:COI]] are important. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 14:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I get you - but that was already rejected by the community. (darmit, I'm still trying to find the old template!) But my argument would be - the uploader is currently notified that he/she has a week to fix the sourcing. [[WP:IUP]] says the images must be sourced. [[WP:CSD]] says unsourced images will be deleted after that week. Are you advocating a tag that says "Although this image is unsourced, we think it's OK because the image is likely PD"? Or would you advocate lengthening the amount of time from tagging to deletion? I think if the uploader doesn't fix the problem in a week, they're unlikely to fix it at all. (Totally apocryphal from my own experience.) If they're on wikibreak or something they can get the image undeleted when they get back so they can fix it. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 20:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::The community may not have understood what the outcome would be. Meanwhile, please don't infer utterly unhelpful template wordings from my remarks (why did you do that?) and do keep in mind, there is no need for any mass deletion of images to begin tonight, tomorrow, or next week. Let the discussion carry on, in this thread for now, and maybe later on another project page. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 20:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Please feel free to substitute any alternate wording; I was just trying to drive at the gist of the conversation. I think discussing here is likely pointless, so I'll disengage and will wait for a more productive discussion elsewhere - this one will peter out with no result and disappear into the archives, I think. I'm positive that any attempted block of OsamaK for simply tagging unsourced images would likely be quickly overturned. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Part of our disagreement is, I think you're still stirring things up rather than helping to find a settled path through this. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== [[User:年轻的古惑仔]] Racism Accusations ==
===Fresh start===
Let's try that everything above this point stays there, this is a fresh start. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
[[User:年轻的古惑仔]] appears to be a SPA and potential sock [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/清风与明月]] who is presently accusing me of being racist or discriminating against Chinese women because I've edited and disputed content on Geji, but not on Geishia, Qiyan, and Tawaif. When I explained that I have no obligation to edit all of those other articles, they just continued to call me racist. {{Special:Diff/1246183793}}, {{Special:Diff/1246174947}}, {{Special:Diff/1246174713}}. After the first round of incidents, I posted a warning on their page, which they disregarded {{Special:Diff/1246220900}} and continued to call me a racist {{Special:Diff/1246310087}},{{Special:Diff/1246309753}}, {{Special:Diff/1246308938}}. --<b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 06:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:What I suggested earlier, but got lost in the excitement, was that instead of immediately tagging an unsourced PD image, which involves leaving a message on the uploader's talk page, that the image-worker simply put a different kind of note on the uploader's talk page, one saying that there are problems with the image, a clear statement of what's missing, and perhaps some tips about how to fix it. Then, after some time has passed and the uploader hasn't fixed the problem, then the 7-day delete tag can be applied. (And why 7 days, specifically? Why not 14, or 30? Is there some kind of rush I'm not aware of to get rid of unsourced public domain images?)<p>This is essentially the same as Gwen's suggestion, except implemented informally without a specific "pending" tag. It seems to me that if the point is to '''''fix''''' images rather than to '''''delete''''' them, either scheme provides some more chance of that fix coming about. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:You know, [[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|BrocadeRiverPoems]], I just got done trying to read through [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible False Accusation]] and if I were you, I'd focus more on editing and not on spending so much time on ANI. For a new editor, I think you have been involved in 3 or 4 cases here already. Editors start wondering if this is drama-mongering on your part. This is not a comment on the nature of your complaint, which might be valid, I'm just trying to discourage you from bringing every dispute you find yourself in to ANI or to keep bringing editors to SPI which is terribly backlogged right now. But at this point, after reading through the last complaint you were part of, this one needs some fresh eyes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::It could be 90 days. There is no rush. The pith would be to helpfully disclaim that PD status was not yet wholly confirmed, which would both warn re-users and give the project time to track down sources. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::Hi. My apologies. I do want to say that I haven't brought anyone to SPI, someone else brought it to SPI and I commented on it because the person who made the SPI complaint mentioned my comment from the previous ANI, and I wanted to properly explain why I had believed the IPs were connected to the editor. I'm not trying to monger drama or anything. Of 4 cases at ANI, 3 have potentially been about the same user's behavior, with this editor seeming to be a sock of the other editor involved in the other 2 disputes. Aside from the incident at "Possible False Accusations", the previous ANI I was involved in was at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#h-User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.-20240905035100]] where nothing was resolved even though a number of other editors expressed their concerns about the user. I had posted a closure request for it, but the topic was archived before anything happened, and another admin I asked said they doubted anything would be done about it since it had been archived. Since the account seems like a sock of the other user involved in the content dispute, and is repeatedly accusing me of being a racist, I don't really know what else I was supposed to do except report it and hope that someone looked into it. But, I'll steer clear of ANI from now on. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 03:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I’ve read the [[Geji]] talk page. For the issues with [[Geji]], I suggest you currently treat it primarily as a content dispute and continue to proceed as you are already doing through the various options outlined by [[WP:CONTENTDISPUTE]]. Hopefully the sock puppet investigation will be processed soon. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 03:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I’ve read the Geji talk page.}} [[Talk:Geji]] is barely readable. It could be, if admin had properly addressed the concerns of {{U|BrocadeRiverPoems}}—and multiple people who agreed with her—on the earlier ANI threads. The suspected sockpuppeteer's bludgeoning on Talk:Geji and canvassing elsewhere are ''hampering resolution of the <u>content</u> dispute''. Just some context. Thank you for reading, [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 15:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I’m no admin. I just think that there is plenty of opportunity to escalate this along the content dispute side, which may be more fruitful for BRP to do, rather than focusing on conduct by going to ANI, which hasn’t been successful so far. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:年轻的古惑仔|User:年轻的古惑仔]], if you repeat the baseless accusations of racism/discrimination or bullying, I'm going to block you. Ditto for maintaining the combative tone displayed at that talk page, including the "do you dare?" type of comments. If you have credible evidence of someone being racist/discriminatory/bullying, please bring it to an admin's attention as soon as possible for review. It would almost never be appropriate to just make the accusation at an article talk page, and none of the evidence you've provided so far—mainly the failure to edit other articles—even approaches the point of sufficiency for such a serious accusation. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== DinosaursLoveExistence and bulk creation of empty, or near-empty categories ==
== Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei ==
{{atop
| result = DLE and the IP are blocked. A discussion, if needed, on the merits of the applicable CSD should continue elsewhere. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 14:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
 
===Complaint [[Framing (social sciences)|frames]] issues and context?===
{{user|Tenmei}} has been engaging in personal abuse and disruptive behaviour on the [[Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] article and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could please review this issue and take appropriate action. To summarise a long story, he has inserted text which describes these ships as aircraft carriers and is disrupting efforts to replace this with text which captures the ambiguity over the ships' classification (the Japanese government and some sources says that they are [[destroyer]]s, other sources say they are [[helicopter carriers]] and other sources say they're [[aircraft carriers]]). As is shown on [[Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]], he has not explained the rationale for his opposition to including this text despite repeated requests from other editors, but has instead responded with a string of personal attacks on pretty much all the involved editors (for instance: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=225387647&oldid=225386192], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=227141962&oldid=227133667], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=225586107&oldid=225585149], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=225411715&oldid=225398352], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=227067028&oldid=227013344] (note also the rejection of the process which used to develop the consensus text in this diff and the statement that he stood aside and waited for the discussion to be complete so he could restart the discussion again, along with further personal attacks), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=225378816&oldid=225376023] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=227168175&oldid=227162801]). He has been warned about making personnal attacks several times ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=225393360&oldid=225387647], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=225512976&oldid=225512417], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=227128621&oldid=227094172] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenmei&diff=227128609&oldid=226868905]) but they are continuing. As is clear on the talk page Tenmei was invited to explain his opposition to calling the ships anything other than carriers, but did not do so, and was invited to participate in drafting a consensus paragraph which discusses the disagreement over the ships' classification but did not participate in this discussion. Instead, a week after the discussion was completed and shortly after I added the consensus text to the article he is now demanding that the consensus on the need to discuss the ambiguity over the ships' classification be overturned and the discussion be restarted from square one (I would be happy to provide diffs for this, but it's probably easier and more meaningful to review the article's talk page directly to get a flavour for the discussion). He is still declining to provide a reason for this, however, and is continuing to make personal attacks. I believe that this behaviour is in violation of [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:POINT]] and would appreciate it if an admin could please issue an appropriate sanction. Thank you. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* {{user|DinosaursLoveExistence}}
:It certainly doesn't help that [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] uses strong language, but I don't see it as being grossly uncivil. Until he goes around throwing insults at editors, I doubt a civility block would be in order. However, I have fully protected [[Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] due to the dispute, and issues should be worked out on the talk page now. Cheers. --<font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font> <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|contribs]])</small> 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
* {{IPuser|46.18.177.138}}
::I don't see [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]]'s comments as particularly uncivil, though if he's causing offence, he needs to rethink the way he expresses himself. Not just for that reason though... I gave up reading eventually. Talk about wading through treacle - strongly recommend he reads [[WP:TLDR]]. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 
DLE and their IP sock have been engaged in a behaviour, supposedly for some time, where (to quote Liz) ''"DinosaursLoveExistence shows up, about once a month, and creates dozens and dozens of empty categories. Then they leave until next month. I tag the empty categories CSD C1. Then, over the course of the next 7-10 days, a random IP account, usually located in Nottingham, comes to Wikipedia and proceeds to fill up most of the categories"''.
:::Thank you for the responses, including protecting the page. As the edit war there is pretty slow paced and the smallish number of edits have been spread across several editors, I think that it is the nature of the discussion on the talk page which most requires intervention. I consider the comments which I've posted diffs to above to be highly rude and constitute personal attacks given the consistant complete lack of any assumption of good faith - instead there appears to be an assumption that everyone has an agenda which they're pushing other than a desire to improve the article. All requests to Tenmai that he explain his concerns and participate in resolving the dispute have been met with uncivil responses, and warnings against his behavior have had no effect. As such, I don't see how it's possible to work out the issues on the talk page as Tenmai is not willing to discuss them. Given that the behaviour has been continuing for over a week now (including a very lengthy cool down period while I waited to see if he had any comments on the consensus text before inserting it in the article) I think that external intervention is required. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I would recommend the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for that response. Most of the points on that process have now been tried, however. I will continue to discuss this dispute on the article's talk page, where hopefully this can be resolved. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::I do sympathise with your difficulties there - there's no doubt that he's disputing the consensus reached on the talk page, although I don't really understand what he's continuing to argue against, since you've mentioned the naming issues in the article. He's been warned over the reverting; that's currently not a problem now the page is protected, and if it continues once protection is lifted then a block from an uninvolved admin should follow. Maybe just ignoring him might be the best option for now? [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
I raised this on their talk: at [[User talk:DinosaursLoveExistence#Massive numbers of speedy deletions on newly created categories]], ''"Something here is wrong. There is no way in which it is a sensible use of editor's time to be tagging for speedy deletion of so many newly-created categories."'' but despite discussion there, {{ping|Srleffler}}, {{ping|Smasongarrison|label1=Mason}}, {{ping|Liz}}, DLE has not responded.
===[[Purple prose]] equals "problem"?===
<font color="purple">
The term [[purple prose]] can be construed as describing words which are seen as over-the-top, over-reaching, over-done ... too much. Stretching a point ... in a sense, it could be said that a complaint in this venue about "personal abuse" is about a kind of purple prose. For emphasis, it may be seen helpful to change the font color to purple in this expository paragraph and in illustrative text below.</font> Arguably, it could be potentially constructive if the words which constitute personal abuse at [[Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] were similarly modified as purple prose. As far as I can tell, this is a novel suggestion; but clearly, some will agree that this is only reasonable -- my just deserts, as it were.
 
This has just gone to SPI where their IP account was confirmed as a sock and blocked: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DinosaursLoveExistence]].
The Wikipedia community has already developed other useful orthographic conventions which are attractive because the consequences are meaningful. For example: As a way of illustrating recanted views, and editor need only strike out the text from which he or she withdraws. If, in this venue or elsewhere, I could come to understand that my words deserved this orthographic modification, I would do it without hesitation. Thus far, the constructive engagement of participants in this venue has done nothing to assist me in understanding why anything whatsoever posted at [[Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] should be re-visited and modified by striking out. The following block of text demonstrates my willingness to invest time and serious thought in learning from whatever opportunity this venue might be able to provide. Except for the comment posted by [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]] on my talk page, that proof of my willingness to engage these issues with sincerity, diligence, and frankness has not appeared to inspired any congruent investments. I deserve better, if not in this venue -- where? when?
 
As DLE is just not engaging, I think there is no other course left here than an indef block. If they wish to discuss it, or the categories, then such a block could easily be lifted. But the current situation is a ridiculous waste of time. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I have here presented proofs of my willingness to mend the errors of my ways if convinced that I've done something I should not have done; but thus far, my open-handed approach has not served me well. Perhaps this becomes one of those times when it is best to try something new?
 
:I have just discovered problems with this editor myself. Earlier today I saw the category [[:Category:Union Nationale des Étudiants de France]], created in May 2021, which is completely useless and contains only the subject article [[Union Nationale des Étudiants de France]]. Then just a moment ago I discovered [[:Category:Deutscher Wetterdienst]], created in August, which again contains only the main article. What's the purpose of this? It's a complete waste of editor time. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 14:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm proposing an orthographic device which I would want to be understood as crying in the wilderness. By minimizing the bulk of the following text, the words which remain in a conventionally-sized print are inevitably emphasized. For our purposes, please consider this as if I were re-reading these words aloud -- with a raised voice, with an insistent, on-edge, alarmed tone; but do not spin this gesture to mean that I withdraw from any part of what is here made small. I parsed my words before posting them, and I have parsed the sentences by grouping them together below. This sign of cautious, thoughtful and intentional draftsmanship would more conventionally seem at odds with the tenor of complaints put forward here. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::Going through their contributions their are [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=DinosaursLoveExistence&namespace=14&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50. useless categories being created frequently]. Plenty of categories like [[:Category:Deutscher Wetterdienst]] with only a single (main) article. Categories applied incorrectly. I don't understand why they won't engage with other editors to discuss this. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 15:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, blocked. That went on for ''way'' too long. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 19:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks @[[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] for making this nomination. I agree that this has wasted a ton of time that could have been spent elsewhere. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 21:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:Personally, I figure the dinosaurs were probably fairly depressive and fatalistic in general. I mean, for sure the theropods at least: few creatures have been given a less ideal set up for scratching their own backs. You'd go insane, wouldn't you? Ten years in, and you'd be like, "God, I can't wait for that meteorite to hit. I hope it comes down straight on top of me." ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 05:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
</font>
*I have mixed feelings about this. DinosaursLoveExistence has been editing Wikipedia for 18 years and did a lot of productive editing over that time. The primary problem here is the fact that they refuse to communicate with other editors, even once before when they were brought to ANI. In that discussion, they weren't the primary focus and the discussion just got archived.
====Re-framing record of "Personal Abuse"?====
:But seriously, between personal messages to them and CSD C1 notices, I've probably posted hundreds of times to their User talk page over the past 5 years with no engagement. But their behavior was so predictable and our work on categories overlaps that my being aware of their editing cycles is second nature. I'll admit that tagging dozens and dozens of empty categories they created every month and then untagging most (that's most but not all) of them 7-10 days later was a waste of my time but it gave me an insight to the diversity of their interests which ranged from medical devices to universities in Germany to geography to landscaping to nuances of the circulatory system. They really had a broad knowledge and contributed categories in many areas that hadn't been categorized yet and, let me tell you, after 23 years, you would think that all of the necessary categories on Wikipedia would have been created already but they found plenty that hadn't been created yet. And while some were questionable and were brought to [[WP:CFD]], I think the majority of the categories they created are still in use today.
<small>The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record: (1) <u>[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] is an administrator; and (2) <u>[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject</u>,
:I don't think they will apply to be unblocked given their aversion to interpersonal contact but, if they do, I hope they will answer the question that has always preoccupied me which is why do they use a registered account to create so many categories and then, a week later, use a variety of IP accounts to fill them. It's such a strict division of labor that I've never seen from another editor in my time on the project. Maybe that will just stay an unanswered mystery. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
February 2008 — August 2008.
::What is the harm in having empty categories, especially if they are being filled eventually? [[Special:Contributions/107.77.204.150|107.77.204.150]] ([[User talk:107.77.204.150|talk]]) 20:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The harm is the wasted time. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 20:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Then just don't nominate them for [[WP:CFD]]. Problem solved. [[Special:Contributions/107.77.204.150|107.77.204.150]] ([[User talk:107.77.204.150|talk]]) 21:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's not the solution and you know it. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 22:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, I don't know it. That's why I asked for an explanation of the problem. I personally don't understand why categories even exist on Wikipedia except as for something to argue over. They aren't very visible to readers. So, having a magnitude greater or less of them seems inconsequential from my current point of view. [[Special:Contributions/107.77.204.150|107.77.204.150]] ([[User talk:107.77.204.150|talk]]) 00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::[[Special:Contributions/107.77.204.150|107.77.204.150]], we have a speedy deletion criteria, CSD C1, that is just for deleting empty categories after 7 days of being empty. Years ago, when policy was being formulated on the project, the consensus might have been that it was perfectly okay for Wikipedia to have thousands of empty categories. But that's not what happened and thus, we delete empty categories after a suitable period of time has passed. Them's the rules. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::But why? Especially, if it's felt to be a waste of time? Couldn't you just [[WP:IAR]] and work on something else that you feel is productive and let someone else work on category maintenance who doesn't find it to be a waste of time? [[Special:Contributions/107.77.204.150|107.77.204.150]] ([[User talk:107.77.204.150|talk]]) 00:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The problem is that not everyone who might be confused by this methodology is here for this discussion. So the issues with the wasted time are likely to repeat themselves. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 22:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
 
::Perhaps DLE is creating the cats with their account and then filling them in during their commutes on a work phone that they'd rather not have their login credentials on? I mean, I know it's wild speculation, but the point is, one can imagine scenarios that explain this behaviour. I also happen to agree that the disruptivness of this methodology is being at least marginally exaggerated here, and that the assessments feel a little reflexive.{{pb}} But at the end of the day, the bigger issue is the lack of communication. I'd love to think that there's plenty of people out there who are capable of contributing productively without ever saying a word to the broader community, but the nature of the space is such that even a very knowledgeable, astute, and cautious editor is going to fall ass backwards into a dispute now and again (whether of their own making or someone else's) and you just have to make an attempt at discussion at some point. If it's not this situation that can't be resolved without engagement, it will be one of the future ones. So let's hope the block gets them into a minimally communicative mood. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 22:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
<u>'''[[WP:AGF]] or alternately, [[WP:AGF]] ≥ [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]]'''</u><br>
{{abot}}
This record, consistent with [[WP:AGF]], demonstrates my continuing efforts to bridge an identified gap. Moreover, this record shows the repeated identification of [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] as non-responsive.
<br>'''12 July'''<br>
* Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, ...[t]he exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why? .... --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
* This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate ''a priori'' concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Wikipedia has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
* Perhaps the following outline from [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] can assist us in moving forward:
:* 1 Focus on content
:* 2 Stay cool
:* 3 Discussing with the other party
:* 4 '''Truce <========== Easily achievable?'''
:* 5 Turn to others for help
:** 5.1 Editor assistance
:** 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
:** 5.3 Ask about the subject
:** 5.4 '''Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?'''
:** 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
:** 5.6 For incivility
:** 5.7 Request a comment
:** 5.8 Informal mediation
:** 5.9 Formal mediation
:** 5.10 Conduct a survey
:* 6 '''<s>If the situation is urgent</s> <========== Not relevant?'''
:* 7 Last resort: Arbitration
:... Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
'''13 July'''<br>
To his credit, only [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] showed any willingness to grasp that I was trying vainly to focus on something non-trivial, as evidenced at [[Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Hyūga an aircraft carrier?]] How else is it possible to construe the following?
:*1. ''Please see'' [[Citation]].
:*2. ''Please see'' [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]].
:*3. ''Please see'' [[Wikipedia:No original research]].
:*4. ''Please see'' [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is [[verifiability]], not [[truth]] — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
::[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] -- <font color="green">No -- <s>with all due respect</s>: My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied '''No''' ''ad nauseam'' to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again....</font> --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== KSDerek ==
* [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever]]
* [[Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]]
<center>'''My patience was frayed by this point, but I was still proceeding under</center>
<center>the assumption that this impasse was the result of a difficult-to-pierce</center>
<center>veil of [[cognitive dissonance]] and [[confirmation bias]].'''</center>
</small><font color="purple">
<u>'''<s>[[WP:AGF]]</s> or alternately, [[WP:AGF]] ≠ [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]]</u>'''<br>
'''Disingenuous is a polite word for lying, for fraud -- dishonesty. What did I do when confronted with clear, specific, and astonishing evidence of [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]]'s lying, fraud, dishonesty? My words remained seemly, appropriate, correct.'''</font>
<small>
:[[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:''note before reading: please see my reply at the end of this thread asking to move this elsewhere'' – [[User:ShinyAlbatross|ShinyAlbatross]] ([[User talk:ShinyAlbatross|talk]]) 19:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
[[WP:AGF]] offered scant guidance, but I had studied its exposition language carefully, and I was quite proper in being guided accordingly.<br>
<small>:'''Accusing others of bad faith'''. Making accusations of bad faith ... can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence ....
Although in was ineffective, I did attempt to present the evidence which informed my changed strategy:
Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions <u>are</u> disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]]'s credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
::*'''06:00''', 13 July 2008 -- [[NPOV]] at [[Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever]]
::*'''06:32''', 13 July 2008 -- [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
::*'''06:56''', 13 July 2008 -- [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] poses 1st ''"disingenuous"'' question
::*'''10:57''', 13 July 2008 -- [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] points to ND's ''"diminished credibility"''
::*'''11:14''', 13 July 2008 -- [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] poses 2nd ''"disingenuous"'' question
::*'''12:17''', 13 July 2008 -- [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] crosses out ''"with all due respect"''
::*'''13:09''', 13 July 2008 -- [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]]'s negative spin on T's "allegations"
 
[[User:KSDerek]] has been harassing me on the page [[Talk:Asian fetish#Regarding_recent_edits | Talk:Asian fetish]] over my large batch of edits. My edits ''were'' bold and sweeping, but I spend a proportionate amount of time researching them and writing about them on the talk page beforehand. I posted to community noticeboards asking for participation (which nobody responded to, unfortunately). I started with good-faith discussion, but was met quickly with derisive condescension and rudeness combined with some misguided interpretations of the sources.
:Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 
At this point I noticed his account was created on Sep 8, which is around the last time I encountered opposition from IP editors. Given recent interactions with certain other editors, I launched a [http://Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A_Rainbow_Footing_It sockpuppet investigation] with my suspicions. I understand his offence at this, but I think it was reasonable grounds to suspect something. However, turned out to be false. I left a message on his [[User_talk:KSDerek#Continuing_with_edit | user page]] offering to forgive, forget and reset the discussion.
:'''Uncivil''' and '''offensive''' are here converted into badges of honor --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 
At this point I think the discussion is untenable. I tried, I opened the door to patching it up, I understand the harm that SPI did (although I maintain the suspicion was reasonable and [[Talk:Asian_fetish#c-ShinyAlbatross-20240918061300-KSDerek-20240918054300 | I later apologized]]), but KSDerek has not shown a willingness to change his tune. Instead, between the choice of civil discussion and no discussion, he's chosen no discussion and has again started editing from his POV.
'''Mediation Cabal'''<br>
I also sought help from the [[WP:Mediation Cabal]] ....
* [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever]]
__________________________<br>
AND YET, these not inconsiderable efforts to stay focused were not met by congruent words or actions .. and [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] instead chose to make a complaint about my "personal abuse" in this [[WP:AN/I]] venue.
 
I have to say that the ''unifying'' theme of KSDerek's objections and edits is in supporting a POV that violence is ''completely'' unrelated to this topic. (There is plenty of discussion in both opinion and research-based sources relating the two.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors=Forbes N, Yang LC, Lim S | journal=Frontiers in Public Health | title=Intersectional discrimination and its impact on Asian American women's mental health: A mixed-methods scoping review | volume=11 | date=27 February 2023 | doi=10.3389/fpubh.2023.993396| doi-access=free | pmid=36923035 }}</ref><ref>{{Citation | vauthors=Fang J | year=2024 | title=The deadly consequences of hypersexualizing Asian women | url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-deadly-consequences-of-hypersexualizing-asian-women/}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors=Zheng R | journal=Journal of the American Philosophical Association | title=Why yellow fever isn't flattering: A case against racial fetishes | volume=2 | issue=3 | pages=400–419 | date=1 January 2016 | url=https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2016.25 | doi=10.1017/apa.2016.25}}</ref><ref>{{Citation | vauthors=Ramirez R | year=2021 | title=The history of fetishizing Asian women | url=https://www.vox.com/22338807/asian-fetish-racism-atlanta-shooting}}</ref>) He does not ask ''whether'' the claim should be made, if due weight is appropriate, etc, but instead asserts that it's simply ''not'', going so far as a semantic argument about the word "fetish".
It doesn't bode well, nor augur well. In the context of this record and [[WP:CIV#Should established users be treated different?]],
*[[WP:AGF]] ≠ [[trust]]
*[[WP:AN/I]] ≠ [[trust]]
 
In summary (tl;dr):
If this were not a pointless [[kangaroo court]], how can I become better informed about what [[WP:AN/I]] is intended to be? --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
</small>
:Can I please submit the above claims that I have been commiting "lying, fraud, dishonesty" as being clear-cut personal abuse? Again, please note the repeated warnings Tenmei has recieved for the rude comments he's posted on the talk page of the article in question (reposted from above, these warnings include: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=225393360&oldid=225387647], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=225512976&oldid=225512417], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer&diff=227128621&oldid=227094172] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenmei&diff=227128609&oldid=226868905]]). [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
# I'm not perfect, but I have tried my best to follow the spirit and rule of Wikipedia's policies,
:'''Comment''': Along with [[User:Trout Ice Cream|Trout Ice Cream]], I left a note for Tenmai on his talk page regarding this thread. Looking at the various diffs and talk pages, I hoped that a polite warning would suffice to alert Tenmai to the disruptive effect his editing was having, and the possible consequences of refusing to let up. This was interpreted as a threat ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenmei&diff=227423548&oldid=227398057]) - if I've stepped out of line, I'd welcome any [[WP:TROUT|clue adjustment]] ;)</small However, as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue, perhaps if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on? The article is protected, and with consensus apparently established on the talk page, further argument doesn't ''require'' a response. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
# KSDerek's conduct ''before'' the SPI was uncivil,
:*Per Eyeserene. Tenmai's edits are indeed having a disruptive effect, and letting him know of that (and what will be done to prevent it if it doesn't cease) requires no clue adjustment. If the disruptive edits continue, I fully support the use of tools. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
# KSDerek's conduct ''after'' the SPI was uncivil,
# KSDerek is engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing.
 
(edit) forgot to sign: [[User:ShinyAlbatross|ShinyAlbatross]] ([[User talk:ShinyAlbatross|talk]]) 17:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::In the context created by the <font color="purple">'''purple prose'''</font> above, [[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]] makes four constructive, on-point observations which I would rearrange in what I consider to be an interwoven, ascending order of importance:
::*4. "The article is protected ..." -- No, not really, no. Except for the word "political" in the first sentence, the current state of [[Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] needs no protection from <u>me</u>. At the first opportunity, I would substitute the more precise NPOV term, "constitutional," in place of a non-NPOV term which has been shown to have unduly trivializing, dismissive connotations; but otherwise, I would do nothing pending further published developments. However, the moment any change is made to the final sentence in the second paragraph, the [[WP:NPOV]] problem re-surfaces anew.
::*3. "... consensus apparently established on the talk page ...." -- No, not really, no. The [[tag-team]] [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership]] charade which played itself out at [[Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] has certainly not escaped my notice -- but it remains naught but a re-telling of the old story of the [[Blind Men and an Elephant]], naught but [http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=21 the sound of one hand clapping].
::*2. "... if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on ..." -- No, not really, no. Empty words would serve no purpose here because, in addition to the fact that I'm not sorry, the fact-of-the-matter is that this tedious whatever-it-is has produced practical, measurable results which were plainly unachievable by any other means -- see third paragraph of [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]]'s most recent edit at [[Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Complaint lodged at WP:AN/I]]
::*1. "... as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue ...." <s>No, not really no.</s> YES. In this unique context, it is conceptually awkward to conflate "content dispute" and "civility issue" but this [[Gordian knot]] formulation is somewhat congruent with [[Wikipedia Talk:Civility#Should established users be treated different?]], e.g.,
 
:So, to sum up, you did a bold deletion of content, KSDerek did [[WP:BRD]] and questioned it on the talk page, then after some back and forth you opened an SPI and expected them to be nice after you didn't [[WP:AGF]]? From what I can tell, nothing KSDerek has done is uncivil. However, I do think that the talk page needs a resolution to this and that you cannot be as dismissive as you were with A Rainbow Footing It. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 18:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::''''Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia'''<br>
::I would say that comments like "Or, is this just to force your viewpoint?" (said repeatedly) and "Why do you lie so much constantly?" are pretty uncivil. I won't get into who did what first, but I think it should be very evident that one of us gave more of a chance ([[WP:AGF]]) than the other. And I think A Rainbow Footing It joining the fray would be blatant [[WP:CANVASS]], considering their first interaction with me was to accuse me of being a sockpuppet (which, fine, but if you think that, open a SPI and find out). Them joining the debate would almost certainly not be about the content and instead be about me personally. [[User:ShinyAlbatross|ShinyAlbatross]] ([[User talk:ShinyAlbatross|talk]]) 21:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::* ... civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, ''not'' simply on what's best for the community.
::I believe [[WP:IUC]] supports my case here. And the "revert" in BRD has to come with reasons ([[WP:BRDR]]) – KSDerek did not. One of his biggest complaints was a study that he actually ''didn't'' revert away (the Shor & Golriz study). Another one of his biggest arguments was totally unrelated to my edits (that Pornography and Sex Tourism should be removed from the article). [[User:ShinyAlbatross|ShinyAlbatross]] ([[User talk:ShinyAlbatross|talk]]) 21:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia ....
:[[User:ShinyAlbatross|ShinyAlbatross]], of course, civility and AGF are valued here at Wikipedia. But this is a collaborative editing project, editors disagree all of the time and tempers get the best of them. Try to work out disputes on the article talk page or another form on dispute resolution. I'm not taking sides here because I haven't studied the edits to this article but you can't run to ANI or SPI every time you have a disagreement with another editor or your actions will eventually be seen as disruptive editing. Most editors here who have been around a long time find a way to continue working on a peoject where there are other editors who they don't get along with and this is usually done by giving them a wide berth and not editing the same articles. An editor's behavior has to be seriously egregious, like racist or transphobic, to warrant a block for lack of civility. Just not being nice or short-tempered are chalked up to the fact that we are all human beings. If you think this editor's behavior is that severe, you have to present examples/diffs so that editors and admins here can see what you are talking about.
::::* Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
:Also, I saw you suggest to the other editor that you wanted to remove a discussion on the article talk page but please do not do that. You can archive talk page content if it is old but do not delete content just because it doesn't reflect your current position. And if you have questions about civility or Wikipedia's forums of dispute resolution, please bring them to [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|the Teahouse]], not ANI. This noticeboard is where you come if all other forms of discussion and resolution have failed and I think this complaint is too soon for ANI consideration. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::* Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Just one suggestion, if you find yourself in a me vs. them dispute, it is often helped by the participation of other editors. You might post a very neutral message on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject inviting editors to come and discuss the dispute. But, like I said, it must be a ''neutral'' message. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the ''community'' deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an ''individual'' can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the ''perception'' that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be .... Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for your reply. For all the recent research I've done into Wikipedia's guidance and policies, I'm still learning. I don't ''believe'' I am running to interventions prematurely, but I will take more experienced users' opinions on this.
::::::Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems .... On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::Nonetheless, ''should'' I present diffs/examples and a timeline? I was not sure how detailed to make this account.
:::::::We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::I would not delete a discussion unless it was [[WP:MUTUAL]], but if you suggest I shouldn't even do that, I'll take that advice.
::I would love participation from impartial users. I posted to community noticeboards [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asia#Assessment | here]], [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/to_do_list | here]], and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups/Peer_review#Instructions | here]]. And I didn't know about the Teahouse, so thanks for linking that. [[User:ShinyAlbatross|ShinyAlbatross]] ([[User talk:ShinyAlbatross|talk]]) 00:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:Just reflecting on this and comments so far, I agree that dispute resolution is more appropriate. To whichever admin reads this, is it okay if I archive this and move it to dispute resolution instead? [[User:ShinyAlbatross|ShinyAlbatross]] ([[User talk:ShinyAlbatross|talk]]) 19:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
 
====Re-framing record of "Disruptive Behaviour"?====
The meritless claim of "disruptive behaviour" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record:
*1. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] is an <u>administrator</u>; and
*2. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] is <u>Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject</u>, February 2008 — August 2008.
 
This editor makes some noticeboard listing of me almost every day. I didn't even do anything for a day now? Two dispute resolution posts, the SPI, now this. All have been closed quickly. Like who is harassing who? After a long discussion on the talk page I gave a small slight of their way of arguing and now they endlessly wikilawyer on that and refuse to respond to any of my points there anymore. They're doing "bold" removals and getting ire for it on two articles, not just one. And when it comes to their claim of having researched things well, almost every single sentence they add to this article is heavily laden with stuff that wasn't mentioned in the source. And they have talking points like "White women discriminating against Asian men (which is pretty well-documented)" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_fetish&diff=prev&oldid=1245977777]. At least other people recognise that I'm not the odd one here. [[User:KSDerek|KSDerek]] ([[User talk:KSDerek|talk]]) 03:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The only thing "disruptive" is the fact that I persisted in the only way possible -- no other option being available as a practical matter. In the face of an unseemly [[tag-team]] [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership]] game, I attacked the logical fallacy implicit in the way this game was framed.
 
:* One SPI has been concluded, and that investigates a very different charge. There was one dispute resolution post, which was closed because the SPI was open (my mistake, I didn't suspect SPI until the dispute resolution was already open)
Yes, of course, I did disrupt "a" game, I suppose... yes. The [[tag-team]] [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles|ownership]] "game" was parsed under closer scrutiny than was within the regular players' [[comfort zone]] ... yes. But this quickly seems to beg the question - two related questions really:
:* I believe everything I wrote is much more faithful to the sources than before my edits. And they were mostly the same sources. I'm not saying there isn't room for further improvement, but it's already a large improvement over what was there and I explained thoroughly what I did on the talk page and (to a lesser degree) edit summaries, which you haven't engaged with.
* Was that irrelevant consensus-building exercise based on the wrong "game"? By this, I mean to say in part, "Was the state of play adequately informed when ''[[Jane's Fighting Ships]]'' and [[Global Security.org]] comprise the only "gold standard" against which all else is measured?"
:* It ''is'' pretty well documented.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors=Lin, K-H, Lundquist J | journal=American Journal of Sociology | title=Mate selection in cyberspace: the intersection of race, gender, and education | volume=119 | issue=1 | page=208 | date=1 July 2013 | url=https://doi.org/10.1086/673129 | doi=10.1086/673129}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors=Potârcă G, Mills M | journal=European Sociological Review | title=Racial Preferences in Online Dating across European Countries | volume=31 | issue=3 | date=5 January 2015 | url=https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu093 | doi=10.1093/esr/jcu093 | at=Supplementary Data, Figure A2.2}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors=Robnett B, Feliciano C | journal=Social Forces | title=Patterns of Racial-Ethnic Exclusion by Internet daters | volume=89 | issue=3 | page=815 | date=1 March 2011 | url=https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/89.3.807 | doi=10.1093/sf/89.3.807}}</ref> Two of these sources are cited in the article. And in the context of that discussion, it's clear I wasn't crudely casting grievances (it is not a moral judgment).
* When did the task of creating a Wikipedia article become a matter of mere gamesmanship? --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:[[User:ShinyAlbatross|ShinyAlbatross]] ([[User talk:ShinyAlbatross|talk]]) 16:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::You later made another post at the dispute resolution noticeboard but removed it yourself. So if you make another there it's going to be a third now. All the noticeboard posts you make are also always slightly biased for you, for example at the numerous Asian-related noticeboards you write that you're "fixing issues", and still, no one is willing to participate in this, which says a lot. [[User:KSDerek|KSDerek]] ([[User talk:KSDerek|talk]]) 02:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
 
== Edit warring on Alanis Morissette ==
::I'm reluctant to post more, since I think we're going beyond the scope of this forum. Your views on civility might be best taken up somewhere else (the [[WP:VP|Village Pump]] perhaps?), as they relate to a general issue rather than this specific one... other than the fact that it doesn't appear you intend do a fellow editor the courtesy of assuming his good faith and retracting your personal comments. We should also not be attempting to resolve a content dispute here. The disruption, however, is pertinent, so (leaving the aspersions aside) as I understand the situation:
{{atop
::*You contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier". "Helicopter destroyer" apparently comes from a number of highly respected sources (including [[Jane's Information Group|Jane's]], widely regarded as one of the top sources in the field). "Aircraft carrier" is based on a TV documentary and some newspaper reports, and is argued by other editors to be a loose description for mass-market consumption to enable viewers/readers to picture the ship.
| result = No further reversions, so stale. Please bring to ANEW (edit warring doesn't require breaking of 3RR) if it resumes. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::*You failed to gain support for your alteration on the article talk page, but repeatedly inserted it into the article anyway. Your edits have been consistently reverted by the article's other editors.
}}
::*A discussion was opened to gauge consensus on the talk page, and recognising that there was some weight to your assertion (but taking [[WP:UNDUE]] into account), a brief sourced explanation was added to the article detailing the apparent naming confusion for the vessel class. However, you decided not to participate in the discussion because you didn't recognise this as a legitimate way of settling the issue.
::*Consensus having been established against your edit, you then resumed agitating for it (in your words, performed a "reset"), seemingly under the impression that, because of Nick's position as both an admin and a MilHist coordinator, the article's other editors had blindly followed where he led.
::Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. There's absolutely zero evidence that Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout, and your refusal to accept the verdict of your peers is digging you into an ever-deeper hole. Perhaps you're the innocent victim of a Nick Dowling-led MilHist conspiracy... or perhaps your proposal is wrong. I've no real desire to keep this unproductive thread alive by posting here again, but ''please'' take some advice: [[WP:FANATIC|don't be a fanatic]], stop disrupting this article, and find something else to work on. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Uhm, guys? I'm looking at the [http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jfs/jfs_5730.html Jane's article] linked in the article itself now, and it refers to the ship as a "CVHG," which translates as "Aircraft Carrier, Helicopter, Guided Missile." What's more, it then lists the section as being "Helicopter Carriers." Given that JFS says they're carriers, and a certain line from the [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ddh-x.htm GlobalSecurity.org article] points out that ''"Having a displacement of about 20,000 tons... they essentially can be classified as light aircraft carriers. It is temporizing to refer to this type of vessel as a DD (destroyer). There has never been a destroyer that exceeded 10,000 tons,"'' I think we can safely say that the "helicopter destroyer" term does NOT come from either of these two sources.
 
{{userlinks|Cruzado}}
No, this fight doesn't belong on here, but it certainly doesn't appear to be as cut-and-dried as EyeSerene is showing it to be. (Full disclosure: While I was completely unaware of these ships until this thread hit, I do personally lean towards the "helicopter/STOVL carrier" designation based on application of [[I know it when I see it|Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography]] to the pictures of the ships. It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on [[Invincible-class aircraft carrier]] over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...) [[User:Rdfox 76|Rdfox 76]] ([[User talk:Rdfox 76|talk]]) 13:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:[[User:Rdfox 76|Rdfox 76]] -- You make two very, very helpful points. Thank you.
:1. [[I know it when I see it|Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography]] is ''a pirori'' more elegant than [[The Emperor's New Clothes]], which served as the core of an alternate approach I've been trying to bring out of the sandbox. Your implied simile seems more likely to inspire a willingness to re-visit some of the otherwise unexamined assumptions which are so strongly held that they block access to the threshold I can't quite reach yet.
:2. Your language is superb -- better than I could have imagined. It captures the ridiculous with humour and sly derision - yes, good:
:::It's ''as silly as if there was a slapfight on [[Invincible-class aircraft carrier]] over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers,"'' the original politically-motivated designation...)
:3. You're on the right wave-length. This is helpful.
:I will have to think about this some more. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
After noticing they had {{diff||prev|1245884937|added}} some content to [[Alanis Morissette]] (disruptively), I initially did assume this editor to be good-faith, {{diff||1245896492|1245895304|trying to fix}} the MoS problems they had caused. But look at what they did subsequently: {{diff||prev|1245929882|claiming}} I had reverted "{{tq|a legitimate update}}" "{{tq|without reason or explanation}}" (even though I did explain, see {{diff|||1245895894|this}} and {{diff|||1245896084|this}}) and restoring their edit repeatedly (despite opposition from me and @[[User:Fulfiller|Fulfiller]], see {{diff||prev|1246168975|this}}). I asked them to stop disrupting the article, but they refused (see [[User talk:Thedarkknightli#Alanis Morissette|this conversation]]). [[User:Thedarkknightli|Thedarkknightli]] ([[User talk:Thedarkknightli|talk]]) 01:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:If it is indeed edit-warring, I'd file a case at ANEW. But it looks like a content dispute and there is no discussion about this on the article talk page. There has been no activity there since January 2024. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hi @[[User:Liz|Liz]], thanks for your timely reply! Well, I've just started [[Talk:Alanis Morissette#Entrepreneur|a conversation]] on the article's talk page. For the reason I didn't file a case regarding them at ANEW, Cruzado didn't violate [[WP:3RR]] (so I don't think they'll be prevented from disrupting the article if I did). Btw, I admit my ignorance of the rules. [[User:Thedarkknightli|Thedarkknightli]] ([[User talk:Thedarkknightli|talk]]) 03:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I understand, [[User:Thedarkknightli|Thedarkknightli]] and I thank you for providing diffs. It's just that escalating disputes to ANI can lead to unpredictable results as both the reporter and the editor being reported are usually scrutinized. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I bet that Cruzado will continue to restore their edit unless they're indeffed. [[User:Thedarkknightli|Thedarkknightli]] ([[User talk:Thedarkknightli|talk]]) 14:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi @[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] and @[[User:LizardJr8|LizardJr8]], could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! [[User:Thedarkknightli|Thedarkknightli]] ([[User talk:Thedarkknightli|talk]]) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I wouldn't want to presume future actions. I would note that it has been 3 days now, without reversion. [[User:LizardJr8|LizardJr8]] ([[User talk:LizardJr8|talk]]) 23:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Harassment by Steven1991 ==
:I do apologise if it seems like I'm endorsing or promoting one interpretation of the sources over another in my post above. That certainly wasn't my intent; I was trying to set out the course of events rather than comment on the actual content. Whatever content issue Tenmei has (and I'm not saying he has no case) is between him and the other editors. However, a clear effort has been made to compromise, and I think the article currently does a pretty good job of explaining the whys and wherefores of this peculiar designation. There appears to be no corresponding movement on his position though, and editing disruptively and insulting other editors is absolutely not the way to get a consensus overturned - especially when one's stated intent was to disregard the discussion process and any decision reached. That's the cut-and-dried part in my view ;) [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Hi, Steven1991 seems to have a pattern of engaging in personal attacks against multiple users, including myself. Attacks seem to generally consist of accusing us of "harassment" after some of us commented on a previous ANI post. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Insanityclown1&diff=prev&oldid=1246593635|1]][[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Insanityclown1&oldid=1246595159|2]]. User has made statements indicating that they do not plan to stop even after having been told to do so[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven1991&diff=prev&oldid=1246617151|3]]. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Insanityclown1|contribs]]) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::[[User:EyeSerene|EyeSerene]] -- 1. Thank you for re-framing the "disruptive" issue in a way that allows me to see how it could appear that my conduct was improper. This was helpful. I need to think about it before I respond further, but this appears to be a template which will help me figure out (1) what I could have done differently AND, (2) what I need to figure out so that I don't make a similar avoidable error in future. For the moment, please consider the hypothesis that you have not made a mistake in investing the time and thought which can help me become a more effective and valued contributor to this Wikipedia project.
:[[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]], the editor has already been blocked after they made these edits so what additional results are you looking for? Also, remember to sign your comments. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::2. Please believe me when I assure you that it wouldn't matter whether you endorsed or promoted one interpretation or another because we haven't even arrived at the threshold of the argument yet. Also, believe me when I assure you that I'm not trying to be perverse ... nor do I think that entirely plausible "fanatic" label is something we have to worry about.
::Complaint probably isn't ripe at this point, but was concerned by his comment that made it sound like he had no intention of stopping the activities that got him banned in the first place. [[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1|talk]]) 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::I will have to think about this some more. --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Looking at [[User talk:Steven1991]], it seems that the person shows no indication of becoming more cooperative therefore my opinion is the person '''must be indeffed'''. --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
== Request for review: Consistant misattribution of cited sources ==
:P.S. In addition to the current block, the user was already blocked in the past for 48h for exactly same behavior. Lesson not learned, it looks like. --[[user:Altenmann|Altenmann]] [[user talk:Altenmann|>talk]] 17:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::<p>Altenmann the editor was blocked in 2019 for some problems [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ASteven1991], that was over 5 years ago and although the editor has a very sparse editing record, I don't think it should count that much when considering current blocks. I also don't know that it's "exactly same behavior" since at least from the block log the stated reason was "edit warring and editing logged out to evade scrutiny". While edit warring has unfortunately continued. I don't see anyone has presented evidence of the editor logging out. Further using misleading edit summaries wasn't mentioned in the past and seems unlikely considering they were barely using edit summaries at the time. </p><p>While the editor did say some stuff on their talk page which was concerning, we tend to ignore some minor blowing off steam when an editor is blocked and I'm unconvinced anything they said then is really enough for a longer block. Frankly I would personally take the sexual abuse comment to be crossing the line enough for an indef, but Drmies didn't see it that way and so IMO it's not worth pursuing further. </p><p>So what matters is how they actually edit going forward. Now that their block has expired, their editor interaction seems to have restricted themselves to emptying their talk page which they're allowed to do and posting these two comments on ANI [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1246848324] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1246847719]. I don't think either of those really cross the line sufficiently for a block. </p><p>OTOH, surprisingly this wasn't discussed previously but many of their recent (direct article) edits both before and after their block seem to clearly be within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area. To articles that aren't sure but they're editing stuff which directly mentions the current war e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kennedy_(Louisiana_politician)&diff=prev&oldid=1246844439] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rector_of_the_University_of_St_Andrews&diff=prev&oldid=1246852261] and before the block [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Atlantic&diff=prev&oldid=1246575633]. They were already given a CTOP alert for the A-I conflict previously and so informed of the [[WP:ARBECR]] requirements so really should not have been making these edits. </p><p>I've directly asked them to stop [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven1991&diff=prev&oldid=1246853337]. If they continue to make edits which are so clearly within the A-I topic area, IMO an admin should just block them under CTOP or at least give a logged warning. These articles are generic enough that most of them don't need ECP and editors need to self regulate. And there's enough that I don't see a partial block will work. If no one is willing to do so from here, opening a [[WP:A/R/E]] case would be the simplest solution. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)</p>
 
'''Continued problematic edits by [[User:Steven1991]]'''
::Pointers here left at ''[[Pederasty#Australasia]] and [[User_talk:Haiduc#Problems_with_a_recent_citation]]''
I'll attempt to present only the facts here.
* <small> 02:38, 23 July 2008 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (77,173 bytes) (→Post-classical and modern forms: removed sections without references: Australasia, Central America, Europe) (undo) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=227333464&oldid=227316741]</small>
* <small> 03:50, 23 July 2008 Haiduc (Talk | contribs | block) (81,803 bytes) (restored removed sections and added refs) (rollback | undo) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=227343260&oldid=227340048]</small>
* <small> Upon reviewing the cited source [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3778/is_200301/ai_n9208658/print?tag=artBody;col1 here] I am unable to find support for the majority of the material. </small>
I'd ask for a review of the source, of the material added, and of the comments that I've left in both places.
<font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:I was under the impression that editing disputes did not belong on ANI. Am I missing something, here, or are you just trying to keep Haiduc so tied up he cannot edit properly? [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 05:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:: This is not a content dispute. When an editor consistantly has problems with interpretation of sources (see [[Talk:Jules_Verne#.22pederasty.22_section|Jules Verne talk]] as well) then this is an appropiate place to raise the concern. - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::: I've also just issued a warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeffpw&diff=prev&oldid=227358138] to Jeffpw. In my opinion he's been ratcheting up the heat across several venues, and is bordering on disruption. I'd welcome a opinions on this as well. - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 05:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Steven continues to add inflammatory and frankly superfluous language to articles while disguising them as "grammar." Such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zio%20(pejorative)&diff=prev&oldid=1247088966 here. This strikes me as an attempt to add inflammatory language unnecessarily while trying to fly under the radar. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Insanityclown1|Insanityclown1]] ([[User talk:Insanityclown1#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Insanityclown1|contribs]]) 22:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* This is difficult. Editors who give even the appearance of advancing a pro-paedophilia POV have, historically, been given very little slack, for good reason. There has in the past been determined and wholly unacceptable abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy, and ArbCom has historically fast-tracked consideration of any such issues, and debated cases in private. I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism, and he should be aware that this is one area where militant activism is particularly problematic, due to the potential impact on the reputation of the project. I think Jeffpw and Haiduc need to turn the heat down at least two notches and respect the fact that the default for disputed content is to keep it out of mainspace until there is agreement from all sides as to whether, and how, it should be included. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion - anythign else would be a POV-pusher's charter. In this case it is especially important to remember that consensus IS NOT agreement of a small group of like-minded users, it requires broad agreement from all sides, and additional input must be solicited if there are not enough eyes on the dispute. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:It is not “inflammatory”. Your response does not seem to be aligned with [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:NPA]]. I don’t understand why you seem to be targeting me – there is no bad faith on my part to any extent. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 00:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
**Brenneman, you could not have found a more unsuitable instance to support your contention. The citation was applicable to the text, it was from an article that discussed the extinction of the very practices discussed in the paragraph (which, as you might notice, I modified to reflect this more recent report). It is an initial citation for a totally non-controversial section. Australasian pederasty is well known and documented, there is nothing to argue about there.
:Looking at this user’s contribution history, they appear to have filed several complaints against multiple users over minor disputes. It raises doubts of vexatious complaints. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 01:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
**Guy, if I was a litigious fellow I would have you strung up by the authorities here for your slur of "pro-paedophilia POV." How do you permit yourself to cast ugly innuendoes on my work on homosexual history? Is this what administrators are supposed to spend their time doing??? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::I think both sides could benefit from a little more [[WP:AGF]] in this case. Insanityclown, I concur that the edit summary was misleading, and did not reflect the nature of the edits. This is an issue. As noted below, I don't think this necessitates them being deliberately deceptive. It's worth keeping an eye on, but even with the pre-block edit pattern, I don't think this one diff is enough for me to suspend [[WP:AGF]]. Do you have any more egregious examples? The few I found were all of the same "could have been a mistake" variety.
::* Read it again with more care. I said ''even the appearance''. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::Steven, I can also see how labeling the phrasing changes as "grammar" could be a well-intentioned error. However, your addition of {{tq| progressive journals like [Mosaic Magazine]}} adds the impression that other journals have said the same, which changes the meaning of the sentence. Similarly, adding {{tq|some}} to make the phrase "adopted by some progressives" changes the meaning from being widely accepted to a minority, which likewise is a content, not a grammar change. Can you see how another editor may have been misled by this edit summary? For good or ill, your contributions are under a microscope now, so you should be careful that your edit summaries accurately reflect their contents.
:'''''I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism'''''. Excuse me? I am not here to advocate for pedophilia at all, and I strongly resent the insuination that I am in any way doing so. If you look at my approx 10,000 edits, including one FA and 2 GAs, you'll see a minuscule percentage relating in any to pedophilism. I am '''''anti-pedophilia''''', though I should not have to be forced to state this for the record.I have monitored the NAMBLA article against both pro and anti-pedo edits, to revert vandalism, and have dome the same on the Pederasty related articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeffpw&diff=227358075&oldid=227107573 Brenneman has now threatened to block me for disruption] if I continue to participate in what I see has been a civil manner. I feel threatened and intimidated by this post. And I feel besmirched by Guys quote above about my participation here. The atmosphere regarding this area of articles has become poisonous, indeed, and I do not think it is my doing at all. Is this what Wikipedia has come to? [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::Finally, Steven, note that [[WP:NPA]] says personal attacks are {{tq|Accusations about personal behavior '''that lack evidence'''.}} (emphasis mine). Insanityclown1 provided evidence above. They may be wrong, but it's not a personal attack to be wrong. This is the appropriate place to raise concerns about an editor's behavior, and they did so with evidence. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 13:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:: I said ''militant activism'', I meant militant LGBT activism, not pro-paedophilia activism. There is a small overlap at the margins, and this is a key part of the problem. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== User:Evelyn Harthbrooke ==
:::''[edit - no ec warning but post appeared here for some reason]'' I don't think that's what was meant by turning down the heat ;) [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]], I see nothing in the above post that accuses you of a pro-pedophilia bias. Guy was making a general observation about the need to be extra careful not to even give that impression when editing such controversial subjects. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::To be sure, I think worrying about appearences rather than content isn't a great way to edit. If Jeff gets militant sometimes, well, maybe sometimes [[Stonewall riots|we need that]]. [[User:Dev920|Dev920]] (Have a nice day!) 12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::: Appearances are very sensitive on this subject. Very sensitive. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::What 'we', [[User:Dev920|Dev920]]? Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. The notion that ''anyone'' is here to push an agenda makes me extremely uncomfortable (and, while I'm sure you weren't serious, your post does illustrate Guy's point about giving the impression of soapboxing, even unintentionally). [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Why have you linked to my name? (genuine question) And I get that people do get all icky over pederasty, but it's not pedophilia. And neither Haiduc or Jeff is a pedophile, they are long, long established editors with an interest in editing pederasty. They really shouldn't have to worry about being accused of a pro-pedo slant, their cumulative efforts here surely show that this isn't the case. [[User:Dev920|Dev920]] (Have a nice day!) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Heh, I just copy/pasted it from your post in edit view (now you've pointed it out though, I've realised I do that pretty much at random - I didn't, for example, with [[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]. No idea why!). However, I think the point being made was not relating to pedophilia so much as militancy in other areas, to the point where it becomes difficult to accept edits in good faith because they give the impression of being decided by a personal agenda. This can be true of any group: LGBT, animal rights, nationalist, religious... the list is endless. I think appearances ''do'' matter because of this, and it's difficult to claim neutrality if we aren't seen to be behaving that way. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Because emotions run high in editing the [[Historical pederastic couples]] article, it's difficult to pinpoint the fault of a single editor. One the one hand, I agree that the citations need to be immaculate and notes should be extensive. However, editors who are either unhappy with the outcome of the AfD or eager to see the article make vast improvements in a small amount of time, are removing content and claiming the sources do not back up the claims when I doubt they have read the sources. Then it rather dissolves into arguing over actions rather than content. I know I have not read the sources, so I am unable to make commentary on them. I have been questioned about content in other articles I have written, though, and when that happens I find my source and copy the passage I used verbatim on the talk page and discuss it there. What might help is if [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] posts a timeline or an estimate of how far he thinks he will get in improving the article in a reasonable amount of time. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
*I just want to state clearly here that, due to the level of intimidation I am feeling [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHaiduc&diff=227357363&oldid=227355591 (On Haiduc's talk page, Brenneman actually implies that I will be banned if I continue participating)], and the threat of blockage for supporting another Wikipedia under attack from all sides, I am now withdrawing myself entirely from any of these debates. Call me a coward, but I am under enough stress without adding to is by trying to help a disputed article. I shall now confine my edits to [[Mary Poppins]] or [[The Sound Of Music]]....oh wait, they involve children too. Damn. OK, I'll just try to tidy [[Angie Dickinson]]'s bio. That shouldn't provoke any storms of controversy. If it does, I'll just give wiki smiles to all and sundry. Wiki cheer promotes a collegial environment, no? [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
First of all, my apologies if this is not the correct venue to discuss this. This dispute originally started as a content dispute but has since - in my opinion - devolved into a conduct dispute. I've there are more appropriate places to have this discussion, I would love to be directed there.
* I think we all need to take a deep breath and step back for a while. Take the disputed content out of the article, leave it on the talk page, and all just do something else for 48 hours. There's an essay jsut created at [[WP:TABOO]] which makes a lot of sense in this context. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
The relevant article for this dispute is [[iOS version history]] and 3 templates included on the article ([[Template:iPhone supported OS release]], [[Template:iPad supported OS release]], [[Template:iPod Touch supported OS release]]). The relevant discussions have been held in the following places:
**There is no reason to stop now, and I think the solution is to focus our attention more closely on what is really going on. It is not pedophilia that neeeds to be exposed here, but intimidation. I feel bullied by Brenneman's behaviour, and while my feelings are between me and my analyst, unfortunately there are objective reasons for my reaction. His gutting of the Hpc article and his belligerent response to my restoration of the Tilden entry are ample evidence, as is his even more troubling equivocation and sparring over my exposure of his behavior. The "appearance of pedophilia" accusation above was more fuel on that particular fire. It is a particularly insidious attack in that there is no defense against it, like Bush's assuring the American public that there is nothing to worry about at Guantanamo because they are all bad guys. Truthiness, welcome to Wikipedia. I am not good at chapter-and-verse polemics, so I will leave it at that. I do want to add that it seems that the suite of pederasty articles is like some sort of glue trap for sub-standard administrators (FCYTravis and Brenneman are just some of the more egregious examples) who come in and act abusively. I can only ask you people to monitor yourselves, and each other. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
=== PedCpl cite prob arb break 0 ===
Apropos of this conversation, please note [[Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples#Details_of_Haiduc.27s_mischaracterization_of_DeFord]], discussing Haiduc's mischaracterization of Frank DeFord's book "The Triumphs and the Tragedy", and [[Talk:Jean_Cocteau#Radiguet_redux|this talk page]], where Haiduc triumphantly cites Cocteau being "devastated" at the death of his friend as strong evidence that he must have been having a sexual relationship with him. This editor has a problem accurately summarizing sources, and it is negatively affecting many, many articles. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
* Jeez, that smells of [[WP:OR]] for sure. But I return to my point above: disputed text out of mainspace and onto talk, and everybody step back for 48 hours. If necessary we should lock down talk for a while, just to make it happen, I believe. There are too many trees for the wood to be evident, and I think some space is required. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* [[Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Missing hardware support table?]]
**Don't put words in my mouth, Nandesuka. You have a problem with objectivity and the mischaracterization ofmy edits. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
* [[Talk:iOS version history#The "Hardware support" section, again]]
::* You say? I don't see any evidence of Nandesuka having an agenda here. You've been open about yours, which is much appreciated, but your expressed agenda means that you need to be especially sensitive to the concerns of other editors who do not share your minority perspective, per [[WP:NPOV]]. Valid concerns have been politely expressed by editors in good standing, regarding your interpretation of sources. In this case I strongly recommend that you present your sources on talk, and wait to see whether there is consensus to support your interpretation. Agitating for what looks to a number of people like a [[WP:SYN|novel synthesis]] is likely to cause you trouble. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
* [[User talk:YannickFran#Please avoid the constant reverting.]]
 
I'm frankly at the end of my rope here. I've requested multiple times to discuss things first, requested 3 [[WP:THIRD]]'s, and occasionally other users have joined in on the discussion. But pretty much everything anyone says or does has been left ignored. The user has repeatedly stated that her opinion was final (Evelyn: {{tq|my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back}}, among other instances) and with that implying, in my opinion, no willingness to discuss. This is further exemplified in recent days by various requests to discuss being left completely unanswered. As I feel that much of my goodwill has been wiped out by the repeated falsehoods (even after being disproven), repeating the same arguments without acknowledging any counterpoints and bringing up different arguments ad nauseam, refusing to acknowledge any other opinions or disregarding them because "user has left", generally contradictory statements, etc. I'm now taking this here because I'm not sure much constructive discussion can still happen at this point.
*Y'know, I think that Guy has got it exactly right? What we are seeing here, once the clouds of suspicion, accusation and counter accusation regarding pederasty/homophobia is lifted, is a classic case of [[WP:BRD]]. We are at the stage where discussion, and therefore consensus, is required before the bold (which is another persons "controversial") content can be included. While we are taking the simple route to dispute resolution, can I just remind participants of the nutshell of [[WP:NPA]]; "Comment on content, and not contibutors."? It may be wise, as suggested earlier, to commence the discussion after a suitable period to allow all parties to engage civilly. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Originally, I wrote out an entire timeline of each relevant edit and revert trying to sum up as objectively as possible the arguments made. However, that resulted in a list of nearly 300 entries. So instead I'll just summarize some of the arguments here, still trying to be as objective as possible in arguments made by others (resorting to direct quotes for most of it). I'm collapsing it because this is still a long list. Although arguable, reading through the talk pages would be the better option, but I do realize that's a long discussion.
I'm mostly surprised that so much on the topic is on here at all. Most of the 'sources' attribute a modern label to ancient social behaviors, allowing both sides to push and pull on the articles to validate either 124th trimester abortions for all offenders, or to validate their molestations. Few editors seem able to keep the articles balanced, but it's fairly uniform that a modern perspective on this mess is the perspective. We would have a lot less hassle of the articles were restricted to using only sources contemporary to any part which use the term pederasty, thus placing emphasis on the modern issue, not on allegations that it's all normal because it's been going on for years (despite ancient cultures being very different than ours), or that it's all deviant because some tragedy befell the culture as divine punishment.(and good luck sourcing that shit.) Tighten up what's permitted on those articles, and you'd have a lot less trouble. I'm not sure the Egyptians had a hieroglyph for pederast, much less a body of scholarship on the matter. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
{| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
:You keep assuming that pederasty = molestation though, and that it follows that an article detailing specific pederastic relationships thus justfies molestation - and it doesn't... it merely offers instances of pederastic relationships...
| <strong>Rough progression of the argument</strong>
:As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::So there are Greek and Egyptian writings on the molestation and predatory behaviors of pederasty in those cultures? Great. Please cite those sources. And no, have you read the list? It's all about the glorious and eternal love blah blah blah between a molester and his victim in some cases, and turning some other "normal" relationships INTO pederasties to augment the size and scope of the perversion. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:::No... I've not read the list... however, pedastry is niether molestation or predatory by definition. Pedastry, by definition, refers to romantic/erotic involvement regardless of whether it involves sexual contact '''or not'''. It also primarily refers to and is defined by the emotional context of a relationship, not the physical context. It's a perfectly valid term, and a perfectly encyclopedic subject. How about you "getting real" per your edit summary comment (not the most civil of comments)... suggesting some manner of delusion or fantasy land on the part of another editor is hardly becoming of you (or so I would hope). As to ancient writings, I don't know about the Egyptians, but I do know that it's a historical fact that man/boy relationships were commonplace in ancient Greece, and prior to that, the neighboring Spartans legally sanctioned and required them as part of a boy's development. They weren't always sexual (some were), though many involved a romantic bond. You're welcome to dismiss that, but to tell the truth, I can't be bothered to go looking for sources for a commonly known historical fact in order to satisfy someone who's already demonstrated and inclination to dismiss quite civil and reasoned articles based on actual definition and complete neutrality with such offensive remarks as "get real". Chances are, given your current style of communication, whatever the source it won't be good enough for you. Especially if it doesn't use the term pederasty precisely, in spite of my prior logical argument of analogy. I don't need to read the article to see it being attacked in its entireity from a POV that ignores the definition of the articles subject in favour of calling the subject something it isn't. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, thanks for not reading my comment clearly. If you have copies of the Spartan decrees requiring such, then you could use that in the Pederasty article, perhaps. However, if it was required, that sounds like an apprenticeship than a true romantic connection. You keep missing my point. Pederasty is a modern label for a behavior which in some cultures is not pederasty, but the normal course of behavior. Pederasty is specifically NOT normal behavior. If it was, we wouldn't need a list of such relationships. IF you can find ancient greek writings about the cultural behavior, you could cite those. You could cite the Spartan law. But you should NOT be using modern assignments of value, 'pederasty', to describe ancient cutlures' takes on relationships. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I missed no point, nor do I do so regularly, Pederasty is not a value term... it's a word with a definition... ie, it gives a name to a very specific object/subject. To quote myself, having said it once already... "''As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy''" [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::No, there's a difference. And you keep missing it. However, I get tired of arguing with POV pushers, especiallty those who push the worst behaviors as normal. So I'm done debating with you, you keep arguing that child molestation is normal, and good luck with that. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::No, there's not a difference. The difference in it's discussion is merely that you are ascribing a negative value to a defined term that the term in itself does not carry. Actually, I'm not the one throwing around offensive and charged terms and accusations, and so before you continue do do so, I rather think it might be wise to look at the typical symptoms of POV pushing. Civility isn't one of them. Incivility most certainly is. I have said or done nothing to suggest that I either believe that child molestation is normal, or that I advocate in favour of that view. Put simply, I don't. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::First, read up on the 'Civil POV Push'. the essay link's around somewhere. Second, assigning a modern value to ancient cultures to validate touching kids isn't how things should be done here. Unfortunately, Civil POV pushers have pushed too many of our articles into validations of child rape and other criminal acts. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) *Sigh* perhaps it is... it doesn't alter the fact that my approach is from an entirely NPOV standpoint though. Pederasty isn't a value... like Appendix, it's a term with a definition. Events and occurances of the ancient world fit that definition, thus are namd by that term... a tree is a tree in whaetever century. Aditionally, it validates nothing. It merely says that it happened, which it did. Once again, Pederaty does not equate to, nor is it defined by molestation. No physical contact has to occur in a relationship, and it can still be legitimately defined as pederastic. The only way to NOT push a POV on this subject, is to view the term for what it is and how it's actually defined. Nor can it be equated to pedophilia by it's definition. If I saw a man of 30 touching up a boy of 12, whther pederastic or not, I'd call the police because it's not acceptable in today's society, and I'd find it disgusting... However, I wouldn't protest a university for holding an academic seminar on "perderasty through time - from ancient greece to the modern western world". To describe a man-boy relationship as perderastic, regardless of whether sex (consentual or otherwise) or not, in any century or culture, is correct per the definition of the word. The POV here is not on my part, but on your assignment of a negative value judgement to a defined and legitimate term, which by nature of being nothing other than a term is inherently neutral apart from the value assignments people such as you seem to believe the term automatically holds. It's a noun, and not even a pejorative at that - as such, it cannot hold or relate to such values.
 
I've answered every point you have served and refuted it with clear logic and neutrality. The point you seem to think I've missed is related to the value judgement that you are making on the basis of the term ''pederasty'' itself. I've addressed that here, though no doubt you'll once again say "but it's about molesting kids!" or some such thing, which you've done fairly consistently so far. In terms of incivility, you could only really go one step further which would mean a personal attack, such is your level of misconduct. The fact is, language changes, and academia claimes and defines new terms all the time - and being as they are, just words of language - descriptors of type, they apply centuries ago just as they do in the modern day - they are how we now name things, and it's really that simple. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:No, it's a simple as what I said. Using modern lenses to examine and judge ancient things to promote a modern agenda. It's a lame way to write an encyclopedia, and using simple object nouns to refute the use of a word which has an inherent value judgment to it, one diffused by your own 'Sparta' example, in which it's an obligation not a romantic behavior, is disingenuous. This article's got massive problems, and assigning a modern value judgment, like Pederasty, to ancient cultural norms, is manipulative agenda pushing. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::As I'm not familiar with the subject, I have no idea what's a reliable source, but there seem to be [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=pederasty%20greece&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp enough books that apply the word to ancient Greece], and the [[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]] shows that the etymology of the word is Greek: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pederast] Whether or not the ancient Greeks used the word "paiderastes", it seems [[WP:V|verifiable]] enough that it can be applied to their behavior. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Alright, NE2, I thank you for being clear and direct. That accounts for one situation, now on to all the other value judgments assigning a modern concept to ancient behaviors. One down, dozens to go. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Do you have a citation for it being a modern concept? --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 03:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::* This is clearly a modern word, circa 1736, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pederasty merriam-webster]. While this is hardly a definative source, this example appears to indicate the level of scholarship taking place here: We shouldn't be trying to score points with cheap shots that take less than five minutes research to disprove. No amount of retconning will change the fact that the '''term''' is a new one, even if it encompases behaviours that have been going on since day dot. more to the point, it's a word that comes with an incredible amount of baggage, in the vein of terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter. - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::**So the English word is from 1736, but that says nothing about the concept or the Greek word "paiderastes". Again, I have no idea if this is a reliable source, but there's a translation of a writing by [[Philo]] in [http://books.google.com/books?id=8hwTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA353], in which the word "pederasty" is used. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::**[http://books.google.com/books?id=OLkNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA161&dq=%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AE%CF%82+%2Bphilo&num=100#PPA161,M1 This] appears to be the original text by Philo, with παιδεραστής (paiderastes) highlighted. (But, since I don't know Greek, I can't confirm that it's not a modern recipe for calamari.) --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 04:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'm willing to and in this case, do AGF and all that, but language changes over time, and as a book travels through history, it's likely, in most cases, to be... adapted? mutated? changed? however you like it, but I can only think of [[Torah|one]] documented case where a modern copy exhibited almost zero change when compared to the most ancient copies. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::I don't understand what your argument here is. You stated that people are "assigning a modern value to ancient cultures", but here it's clearly (assuming the sources are reliable) an ancient concept. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Brenneman gets it, and so do you, but you won't admit it. A word invented less that 300 years ago to discuss 3000 year old behaviors isn't appropriate. Unfortunately, Brenneman's source trumps yours, because yours could have been adulterated inthe last 2000+ years. This isn't like 'apple' for a fruit the greeks ate, but we use 'apple' cause it's the english language equivalent. There's a fat stack of SYNTh and OR to assume that a social obligation in Sparta is the same as a 'voluntary romantic relationship', and you've yet to demonstrate that the social obligation of the Spartans was called Pederasty by the Spartans. EVEN if you could, you'd still ahve to demonstrate that the Spartans were able to 'romance on command', and that pederasty in the modern sense, and the spartan pederasty, IF that's what it was equal to, really were the same thing; a duty to train young men and a desire to bone them are different. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Did you read the sources I gave? [[Philo]], writing at the time of the birth of Christ, talks about the "evil [that] has crept into society, namely, pederasty". He uses the Greek word παιδεραστής (paiderastes). I don't know how you can look at that and say that the concept of "pederasty" is a new one. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:No Thuran... my Sparta example diffuses nothing... The history shows it to have been an obligation, and it also shows the relationships to have more often than not to have been or have become romantic in nature. Pederasty is not a value jusdgement. Pederast is a noun, and pederasty is applied form of the noun. Niether are value jusdgements, and that's just the way the English language works. It's a legitimate term in academic study with a specific meaning. NE2 above has gone to the level which I had not the time for, and has actually even gone so far as to offer the ancient greek etymology of the term, describing the relationships at the time in the language of the ancient greeks themselves. [[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] ([[User talk:Crimsone|talk]]) 00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
=== Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 1 ===
I'd like to refocus discussion by re-iterating the claims made in the section and comparing them to what is found in the source cited.
 
*Melanesian cultures employed insemination rites ''source covers Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, but on this point as it is non-contentious there is some leeway''
**Sperm essence of strength ''surprisingly this seemingly straight-forward claim is not supported by the citation.
**Not spontaneous but must be introduced ''unsupported by reference''
*20% Papua-New Guinean of cultures had these rites ''unsupported by reference''
*Mentoring
**Father, mother's young adult brother choose ''unsupported by reference''
**Educating, guiding into manhood ''unsupported by reference''
*Fatherhood
**First two kids ok to "mentor" ''unsupported by reference''
**After that had to quit it ''unsupported by reference''
*Casual relationships existed ''this is supported by the reference, however''
**Boy had to be recipient ''(?) I don't even know what this means. Is this a euphemism?''
**Growth could be damaged '''''specifically refuted by reference'''''
*Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle ''unsupported by reference''
 
I've seen H's referencing described as “careless and garbled.” I'd say that is as generous an interpretation as it is possible to make. In the example given, even the least contentious claim is mostly unsupported by the citation, and at least one claim is directly refuted by it.
 
H's creative use of sourcing, combined with abject unwillingness to accept any other interpretation of sources, is damaging the encyclopaedia. Frankly, had I come across this situation "fresh" I'd have blocked him outright to prevent any further damage. I'd support a topical ban (at the very least) until H can be made to understand why his novel sourcing is a problem and some way can be found to allow him to contribute positively.
 
<font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::Brenneman, you are doing far more damage to this encyclopedia than I ever could. The density of citations that you are suggesting is found in ''what'' percentage of the articles??? And why are you so focused on the bizarre practices of an extinct society of what have been described as "homicidal banana farmers?" The material is there to illustrate the gamut of homosexual/pederastic constructions, not to recommend the practice to present-day do-it-yourselfers.<br> To my eye your contrived "denunciation" coupled with your previous belligerent behavior are indicative of one thing and one thing only: you do not like pederasty and are out to make it as hard as possible to cover the topic. I think ''you'' should be subjected to a topical ban, you have given ample proof of an inability to be impartial. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::: Do you understand the problems that Aaron has highlighted with your sourcing with respect to this particular example? Do you have any explanation for those discrepencies? [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::: The "problems" are blown out of all proportion, this is a case of lese majeste made out of whole cloth. The paragraph in question was written by me in May 2005, when we did not yet focus as strongly on citations as we do now, or at least I was not aware of it. If this was the only uncited paragraph in all Wikipedia I would feel a lot more contrite about it. As it is not, I simply have to lump it with the other several million uncited paragraphs, and certainly it needs references. It would be a lot more useful to the readers if it did. At some point it will. This very instant in time I seem to be spending more time talking to other editors then doing useful work, not a good situation.<br> However, the material as presented is essentially correct and legitimate. It is based mainly on the work of Gilbert Herdt, of whom you have certainly heard, seeing your familiarity with the topic. The material is utterly uncontroversial in the academic sense. So why is everybody getting so agitated? Do you think I made it up? Do you think I prettied it up? Do you think I added it with prescriptive intentions?<br> I'll offer you a challenge, both of you: If the material does not prove to be largely as I have written, I leave Wikipedia for a year. If, on the other hand, it is largely as I have said, '''you both leave Wikipedia for a year.''' Deal? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::::The density of citation is what is required of Featured Articles. Furthermore, just about all of the sentences are ''highly'' controversial statements and need to be verified. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:::::Haiduc, it seems to me that the mature solution would be to remove the material yourself, stick it on a userspace sub-page for now, then add it back in when you've tracked down the references. Does it really matter if a few days or weeks pass by without it in the article? And of course, if you don't manage to reference it, it should never have been there in the first place. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::::: While I've been attempting to be a politic as possible here, the direct question has been been asked: "Do you [brenneman] think I [Haiduc] prettied it up?" Well, in a word, yes. I've been unable to locate a copy of the particular Herdt work I beleive that you're caliming this material is based upon. I have however found a large number of other papers that ''cite'' that paper, and they consistanly quote Herdt as saying that "from 10 to 20 percent" of cultures practiced RH. "''Ten to twenty percent of all tribes in Melanesia -- an Oceania region stretching 3,000 miles from Irian Jaya to Fiji -- have mandatory "boy-inseminating" practices, claims Herdt.''" That it was chosen instead to be a bald 20% in the article is, if we may be frank, "pretty-ing up." I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong. (As in the case above where the source directly contradicted the claim in the article.) All material that's '''all material''', added by this user should be removed from articles until such citations as there are can be confirmed. - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Located [http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ADwsUrLgtM4C&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=%22Herdt%22+%22Sambia+Sexual+Culture:+Essays+from+the+Field%22+&ots=dcYgu0vBet&sig=lticB23C4PzyN-IPgUS2mji40z8#PPA239,M1 a direct source] "Sambia Sexual Culture: Essays from the Field By Gilbert H. Herdt" where as predicted it says "...age-structured homoeroticism occurs in approximately 10 to 20 percent of Melanesian societies." - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:Aaron, I looked through that reference and I don't see any sort of deception here. I see a reference which supports a good portion of the text it was added to. Do you disagree that there were statements in the removed text, not included in your list above, which clearly WERE supported by the reference? Do you disagree that the reference clearly does describe youths having homosexual relationships and then transitioning to purely heterosexual relationships... essentially the 'Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle' which you call unsupported?
:It seems like you are saying Haiduc needs to immediately bring '''everything''' he has ever written on Wikipedia, going back to 2004, up to the level of citations required for featured articles... or it should all be removed. Because he wrote 20% and you found other sources which had '10 to 20 percent'? It isn't possible that he originally (when he wrote it a couple of years ago) got that from some source which DID say 20%?
:As I understand it, most of the statements in that passage aren't even controversial. Nobody is denying that it is largely correct... it just needs more references and a few wording adjustments to note estimates and differences of opinion in the field (e.g. growth stunting or not). Right? --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::I do not believe that it is a good idea to indulge improper behavior. It does not go away on its own, but if unchecked it becomes more widespread and serious as time goes on. It also corrupts the environment in which we work here. For my part I certainly do not want to function as an enabler. Brenneman's statement that "the citations added by this user and '''''in almost every case''''' they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" [emphasis mine], taken in the context of his previous behavior and statements to date, amounts to defamation and harassment. I request that the matter be investigated (take my last 100 citations, for example) and if they are largely not as described by this gentlemen, that he be formally disciplined. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:: CBD, the problem is that this is an ongoing and continuing behavior. It's aggravated by Haiduc often preferring fringe over mainstream sources. See the discussion on [[Talk:Jean Cocteau]] for one good example of this, where he completely ignores the authoritative biographies on Cocteau. But even when he cites a mainstream source, he tends to mischaracterize -- as in his selective quoting of Frank DeFord's book ''Big Bill Tilden'', where through cut-and-paste he manages to construct a paragraph suggesting an ongoing relationship and a sympathetic defendant by selecting disparate sentences from a chapter where DeFord unambiguously paints a picture of a squalid assignationm and a legal case that can only be described as a horrific train-wreck. When discussing this on article talk pages, instead of coming clean, Haiduc tends to double his bets down. In the DeFord case, for example, he suggests that he and I "just have different readings" of DeFord. In fact, absolutely no one who comprehends English could possibly read DeFord and then claim that DeFord suggests that Tilden had "long term loving relationships"; the author devotes ''an entire chapter to demonstrating the exact opposite''. If we were only talking about a few old citations that would be one thing. But this is a continuing pattern of behavior, and I see no signs of improvement over time. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::A sterling example of straw man argumentation. My reply must await the end of the business day. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 12:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::CBD, it seems to me that Brenneman makes clear that he checked the source Haiduc DID use, and the source Haiduc used said something other than what Haiduc represented it to say. Given that, and given the highly controversial topic here, ''any'' statement not supported completely transparently by a source should be immediately removed. Any statement for which the source is questioned should be removed to the talk page until it can be sorted out, and in any case where a problem continues, it should be held off the article page until settled. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:::ThuranX, you seem not to understand that I '''also''' checked the source Haiduc used and disagree with the claim that it was deceptive. Indeed, my first concern on comparing the source to the article text was that it might stray close to plagiarism, given the presence of some exactly matched phrasing. That source DOES support the text it was added to. More sources are needed, but sourcing being ''incomplete'' is completely different than sourcing being 'deceptive'. Removing contested statements without sufficient sources to the talk page IS, as you say, the proper course. But then... most of these statements AREN'T contested (just '20%' instead of '10 to 20 percent' so far as I know)<s>and they ''weren't'' moved to the talk page for discussion. Just removed.</s> ''(confused this with one of the other complaints)'' --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::No, I did understand. Haiduc is playing games with the statistics. Would you rather pay 10% or 20% of your earnings in taxes? When the source says 10-20%, and Haiduc selectively reports the higher end only, it's damn close to a POV push, and a certain misrepresentation of the source material. It's the sort of statistical pick-and-choosing one sees in polemics, editorials, and other persuasive essays and opinion pieces. Haiduc should either report what he finds only, without editing to his agenda or POV, and nothing else. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I haven't investigated the incidents that Aaron Brenneman and Nandesuka are talking about, but I've seen Haiduc's contributions in many articles dealing with classical antiquity, and his work there is fine--both the quality of sources and the representations of them. So statements such as "the citations added by this user and '''''in almost every case''''' they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" are overblown, and calls to remove all of Haiduc's contributions a bit on the hysterical side. [[User:Akhilleus|--Akhilleus]] ([[User talk:Akhilleus|talk]]) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
=== Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 2 ===
I cannot believe that this is an any way difficult: We have a serious problem with a prolific editor who is chronically unable to attribute material correctly. And this is not someone making up things for articles on profesional wrestling or sea turtles: This is a highly contentious, hot button issue. While I am unaffected, there is signifigant reputational risk here if we do not correct the problem now that it has been identified.
:'''1)''' My original statement was ''"I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong."'' That statement is correct: In every case where I have been able to actually locate the source, the information bears little or no resemblance. I'm happy for a workshop page to be created somewhere and a working party go through them with me.
:'''2)''' The "FAC" line of reasoning was created from whole cloth, and was never in any suggestion that I made. I'm not a member of the "every phrase cited" brigade. I'm happy with a single citation per paragraph (or even less) as long as there is accurate representation.
I'm dumbfounded by CBDunkerson's claim that the citation supports "mostly" the claims. I made some effort to show that it did not, and in places that it directly refuted what was claimed. I'd ask CBD to re-read my comments above: I did not find "another source," I found the source that H claims supports the statement. It, like <u>literally</u> every other time I have attempted to verify his claims, was a misrepresentation. If, as Akhilleus suggests, this author has done acceptable work elsewhere let him return to that, per the topical ban I initially suggested.<br/><font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Hear hear! I'm a bit more strict about it than Aaron, apparently, because I'm advocating that ANY contentious statment be pulled till separately sourced, but Aaron has provided examples of the disingenuous sourcing occurring, and there should be a topic ban for that editor, and any like him (her/it). [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Aaron, when putting something in quotation marks (e.g. "mostly") and attributing it to someone... it is generally good for that to be something the person has actually said. Which... I didn't. What I said was that the source supports a 'good portion' of the text in question. I didn't do a mathematical analysis of the paragraphs preceding and following the reference to determine the percentage supported (presumably would need over 50% for 'mostly'). Should I accuse you of 'deceptive sourcing'? Seems more like minor sloppiness not worth making much of a fuss over... which is also how I see the examples of Haiduc's 'crimes'. He said 20% instead of 10 to 20? You say he cited the source you found... but I didn't see that source attached to the text in the article. Are you sure that was his source? The source I DID see him citing actually matched part of the article text word for word... which isn't good either, but certainly doesn't jive with it NOT supporting the text. In another 'case' he said that two people had a sexual relationship because they went to dinner, played tennis together, met at one's school, and oh yeah fondled each other's privates a few times... 'sexual relationship'? Completely insupportable on that evidence. It was just a relationship, which happened to include sex (unless we're going to get Clintonesque on the definition). Or the other one where it was completely unjustified to cite a source as claiming a relationship JUST because that source said one person was devastated over the death of the other... except that the source didn't say JUST that... it also said that they had a "romantic relationship". My take on the 'case' as I've seen it is that Haiduc's citations are not perfect in covering every clause of every sentence with no possibility of dispute or alternate interpretation... but they also don't seem like the nefarious deceits which seem to be being claimed. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:: [[Quotation_marks#Irony]]. Barring that tangent, I'm confused by your claims. While this is a trivial example, chosen from an extensive list of incorrect citations:
::* The text said "about 20%" with no citation
::* I removed it
::* H added it back, with a citation
::* I looked at that citation, it said nothing of the sort
::* H claimed here that that figure was from ''another'' source
::* I found that source, and it says "from 10% to 20%"
:: Fine, let us characterise this as simple "sloppiness." (Your choice of polarising language like 'crimes' is unhelpful as well, but I digress.) It's not a single instance of "sloppiness" it's a continuing series of misattributions or misreadings. Let's move on to your "relationship" example, Tilden and Bobby.
::* Per the source:
::** One dinner together,
::** Played tennis together once,
::** One hand-job in the car that got them arrested.
::* Per H: ''He was clearly Tilden's boyfriend, even if of recent vintage. Tilden had a number of long term loving relationships with boys and there is no reason to suspect that, had these two not been busted, this might not have evolved in a similar direction.''
:: I've been very careful to provide evidence for every statement I've made, and attempted to break down the problem here very carefully. Please be <u>specific</u> when making counter claims. And moving on to one of your claims, that it "matched part of the article text word for word."
::* From the text H added: ''"...some native tribes (about 20% at the end of the twentieth century, a proportion that has since been reduced to vestigial and moribund remnants as contacts with foreigners caused western morals to become prevalent)..."''
::* From the actual source: ''"A case study of striking change among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea suggests that ritualized homosexuality and insemination of boys have become behaviorally vestigial or moribund and '''that characterizing sexual practices in these terms has been difficult to begin with (as the original proponent of these terms has himself suggested).'''"''
:: It's clear that, as Nandesuke makes refernce to, a cut-and-pastiche approach has been taken, using the highest figure from one source combined with a snippet of text from another, and leaving out utterly the caveat that I've emboldened. I'd encourage anyone wishing to weigh in to this debate to actually take the time to look over the talk pages of these various articles to familiarise themselves with the issues at greater depth.<br/><font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
=== Problem with sources re pedarasty, break 7246 ===
Sigh, what happened to the usual procedures like editing the article, discussing things on the talk page, RFC in case of problems and using this page only for vandalism, using AFDs only for AFD discusions and DRV only for DRV discussions? Currently we have discussions at a DRV and here that belong in the talk page. :( [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 00:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:No, this is about preventing deceptive sourcing, which is an AN/I issue. On contentious articles, it needs to be stopped fast. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Count Iblis, I'd welcome additional editors on the talk pages of these articles. - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::Why not open an RFC on either the article or on the involved editor(s)? Compare e.g. [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight]] [[User:Count Iblis|Count Iblis]] ([[User talk:Count Iblis|talk]]) 00:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:::It is apparent to me that the admins pursuing this attack have repeatedly compromised themselves and should be disciplined for taking advantage of their position in order to pursue a personal agenda. It is not the sourcing of my writing here that is deceptive, but rather the tissue of fabrications which these people are weaving. As I have said, take my last hundred citations and prove your claim. I will not be reading this page any further, please find me at my talk page. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::::No problem. We'll develop a consensus here about what constitutes some responsible sourcing, and let you know the new rules when we're done. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 02:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
This issue with Haiduc has also surfaced at [[Jules Verne]]... see [[Talk:Jules Verne#"pederasty" section|here]] for details. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 09:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
*'''Comment''' I've found the whole level of discourse on this subject, from admins, sadly enough, who would presumably know better, alarming. I'm sure I too can expect to be labeled a "pro-pedophilia activist" or similar nonsense and painted as advocating agendas. Throughout the AfD, the DRV and now spreading to related articles and admin boards is a level of unpleasantness that has made editing there and constructive discourse more than a bit toxic. That admins have concerns is fine, that they creep onto and even cross civility lines is not. I know that this is a sensitive area for many dealing with multiple cultural and social taboos but we can certainly deal with the subject without demonizing editors. Personally, I've had to walk away from the article as I didn't appreciate the treatment Haiduc was getting there and on these admin boards. Essentially disparaging their work, all of it. Those of us who have a depth of understanding in taboo arenas of the human experience don't need special treatment but neither do we deserve pillorying at multiple public forums in addition to the more juicy talkpage and offline arenas. Editors face enough challenges without having their reputations smeared. [[User_talk:Benjiboi|<small><u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u></small><u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b<font color="#FF4400">oi</font></u>]] 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== Heads up: [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] ==
 
I've fully protected [[Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)]] following edit warring over what to tag the page as. I suggest uninvolved admins look over the talk page. -<font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 19:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 
: Hm. From 2005 to late 2007, it was a "guideline". After some disputes, it was marked as a "proposed guideline". Currently it's marked as an "essay". So what's current policy in this area? RC patrollers await an answer. We need to know what fancruft to mark for deletion. --[[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::FICT is mostly a summary of [[WP:NOT#PLOT]] and [[WP:IINFO]]. Though, really, it should have the "historical" tag. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:::Why aren't major changes like that brought to the community's attention? FICT ought to be a guideline or flat out 'crap isn't notable' policy. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Lol that would make a good policy. In the end, we really don't need so many policies though, notability is about whether something's been mentioned in reliable sources, so there don't need to be different policies for different subjects- why should some be treated differently to others? [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 01:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Because the quality of 'reliable sources' seems to change by subject area, and according to the various projects, and according to the standards of Inclusionists or Deletionists, or those just plain sensible and serious. Asserting it's 'so easy' is oversimplifying. Get an inclusionist Pokemon fan and we wind up with 2500 articles detailing each pokemon because 'not only does it appear on the card but in all the 'how to play pokemon' books. thus it's notable'. and so on. That sort of incestuous sourcing needs to be stopped in all subject areas. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 02:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Why does it need to be stopped? [[m:Wikipedia is not paper]]. To quote: "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."
::::::What exactly do we gain by REMOVING verifiable information on notable topics? The satisfaction of having declared that sub-portion of the topic 'not notable'? I'd rather Wikipedia be the comprehensive encyclopedia it was intended to be. --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::To ThuranX's question: the proposed version was brought to a large-scale RFC back during June to get input on it (after the 2006-ish version was contested in part to TTN's actions and the ArbCom cases) - the RFC failed to show consensus, 50% for, 25% against it due to being too harsh on fiction, 25% against it due to being too lax on fiction. Analyzing the results, its been determined that FICT can't really be resolved until we answer questions (via another large scale RFC) on notability in general. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] 11:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::::::: We gain the priceless guarantee that Wikipedia treats all subjects equally and from the same real-world perspective. We ensure that the article on [[Homer Simpson]] devotes more time to examining how the ''cartoon character'' has influenced the rest of the world than to the ''cartoon character'''s daily routine and favourite pastimes. Have a look at how [[Memory Alpha]] treats Star Trek articles compared to here. If you were a disinterested third party who happened to want to know something about a Star Trek episode, which wiki is more useful to you? "Comprehensive encyclopedia" does not mean "limitless database of everything ever". [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 11:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::So, we want to concentrate on being useful only to people who AREN'T interested in the topic they are reading about? :]
::::::::You state that we have to choose between two types of information... but we don't. There is no reason not to have BOTH the 'real world analysis' and the detailed documentation. Seriously, what does it hurt? Why is it better to limit our coverage of notable topics to the lowest common denominator? We can't cover things which a disproportionate number of people obsess about in any greater detail than things which only a few people obsess about because... that would go too far towards giving readers what they want? --[[User talk:CBDunkerson|CBD]] 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== Rapid archiving? ==
 
Why are three hour old threads being archived? [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 20:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:I believe some answers may be found at [[User talk:Ncmvocalist#ANI archiving]]. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 20:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::Hm. I can't say I agree with the argument that posts should be archived quickly if they ''seem'' resolved (ones with an actual {{tl|resolved}} template are ok). It's not over, until it's over. People may wish to respond to those discussions. --'''[[User talk:.:Alex:.|<span style="color:#66CDAA">.:</span>]][[User:.:Alex:.|<span style="color:#5F9EA0">Alex</span>]][[User talk:.:Alex:.|<span style="color:#66CDAA">:.</span>]]''' 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with Ncmv's ''idea'' of manual archiving before the bot's 24 period to get the page size down, but think archiving 2 hour old threads might be over-reaching. People don't check ANI every 2 hours; they should be able to see how long, complicated threads have turned out without wading thru the archives, or (more important) they may disagree with the fact that it's resolved. Surely there's a compromise lurking in there somewhere; say if it's had a {{tl|resolved}} tag or an <nowiki>{{archive}}</nowiki> tag of some kind on it for (say) 8-12 hours, maybe? Some number greater than 4 and less than 24. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::As the planet spins at very slightly over 24hours per day, I feel (and have suggested) that the minimum needs to be 12 hours to give every chance of a section being seen by most of the English speaking inhabitants. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 20:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes that's a valid point. I could go to sleep and find several threads created and archived during the night when I awaken. Maybe a little longer than 12 hours though. --'''[[User talk:.:Alex:.|<span style="color:#66CDAA">.:</span>]][[User:.:Alex:.|<span style="color:#5F9EA0">Alex</span>]][[User talk:.:Alex:.|<span style="color:#66CDAA">:.</span>]]''' 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I've been manually archiving threads that have been sputtering (a couple folks leaving sporadic light-hearted throwaway comments can cause a huge thread to sit essentially stale for days and days) but I'll admit I don't do it unless the latest date is yesterday - preferably early yesterday. —[[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:Wknight94|talk]]) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Actually, that's a much better idea; I have no problem at all with manual archiving after even two hours, if the last ''remotely serious'' comment was 18-24 hours previous. Most of those undead, zombie threads that stagger on for days could then be put out of their misery. Of course, ANI will get slightly longer with all the "Wknight94 didn't take my comment seriously! Desysop him now!" threads. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::(Yes, I've already had a nicer version of that on my talk page...) —[[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:Wknight94|talk]]) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Just a quick comment here.. ANI is not the [[Truth and Reconciliation Commission]], so we really don't need to hear from 100% of the voices 100% of the time. In my mind, if a thread appears, is resolved, and archived all while I sleep, that's probably a ''good'' thing most of the time ;) I understand the concern that something might got resolved incorrectly, but for me it's about priorities. Right now, I think the "OMFG moar drahmaz!" problem on ANI is much more crushing than the occasional minor injustice. --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Nod. But so far I've not ever heard anyone complaining about Ncmvocalist archiving things too late. Always it seems to be more about "too soon" or "too vigorously". ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::'is resolved' is the key element there. The world won't end if a thread isn't archived and there is even the remotest hint that its not satisfactorily resolved.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) I agree with archiving some threads that are obviously finished, but I'd rather they at least be given 12 hours since last activity. A few of the threads were archived too quickly, IMO. I was away from the computer due to personal obligations, and by the time I come back (8 hours later or so), a bunch of replies are in the thread but it's archived so I can't respond. '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup>message</sup></b>]]'' 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
::I don't have any real problem with sections being archived a few hours after the last comment when the discussion is clearly resolved, but I do have a problem with edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=227292718&oldid=227292551 this one], where sections are wrapped in those pretty little archival templates '''2 minutes''' after the last comment. That...I hate. - [[User:AuburnPilot|<font color="#000080">auburn</font><font color="#CC5500">pilot</font>]] [[User_talk:AuburnPilot|<small>talk</small>]] 23:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Phew, wasn't me :D [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
I think filing parties are capable of looking at their thread in an archive - a lot of them end up having to do so because they might not login for several days. Between the time I logged off and now, there's been an increase of 16 threads (within 12 hours) if that's anything to go by. If people prioritized on responding to unresolved threads (like the one above this one that has 0 replies, or the thread right at the top of the page that has been open for days), there'd be less of a problem. Instead, with the rate of ANIs being opened, and how big this page becomes, I really don't see the issue with going to the archive to read how it was considered resolved. From time to time, of course mistakes can happen (just like the bot) and things might get prematurely archived, just as things might be left lying around, but bear in mind I have read or skim-read through the thread (unlike a bot) to know if it's resolved - if the bare essential admin action has been taken or admin attention been given, there's no reason to prolong it anymore. If I think there is a chance that more attention is needed on an action, I won't archive it straight way. Certainly some people are going to think it hasn't been resolved - it was very recently I had to deal with 1 individual who proclaimed the dispute is unresolved unless their 'restraining order' is imposed. I don't think we need a full thread to repeatedly tell them, this is not possible as it's punitive or inappropriate or...etc. etc. If there's an issue, contacting the person who dealt with the complaint is probably going to be much more effective. But, if there's major opposition to my archiving with a basis we can agree to, I'll gladly stop or modify my approach. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 04:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:I'd prefer you not archive so vigorously. You seem to be saying your judgement of whether something is resolved is adequate and that the archive should be referred to. I'm not sure I agree. We have a bot, let the bot do the work. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with that. The bot is on a timer for a reason. Unless everyone involved in the thread has whole-heartedly agreed that the thread is resolved there is zero reason to archive it early.--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I feel the same way. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
== Marvin Diode ==
 
As per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227726449 this diff]. [[User:Marvin Diode]] deleted my thread here for no apparent reason. I'm going to repost, but that is highly inappropriate behavior. [[User:MSJapan|MSJapan]] ([[User talk:MSJapan|talk]]) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
:It was almost certainly accidental. Depending on which link one clicks to edit, it's possible for other editors to make intervening changes that are lost when ones own edits are saved. Sloppy, perhaps, but not malicious or intentional. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::It was indeed unintentional, and I left an apology on MSJapan's talk page. --[[User:Marvin Diode|Marvin Diode]] ([[User talk:Marvin Diode|talk]]) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Hiram111]] ==
 
I've been having issues with [[User:Hiram111]] in [[Druze]], where he kept removing references by [[John Esposito]], [[Mordechai Nisan]] and other scholars, calling them ''unreliable'' and ''unscholarly''. He recently monitored my edits and followed me to [[Twelver Shi'ism]], where he added POV statements from unreliable sources about concepts already explained further in the article. I repeatedly reverted his edits until he reverted mine from a [[Special:Contributions/Macabricvoid|newly created]] sockpuppet account, [[User:Macabricvoid]], adding other dubious statements with sources that have absolutely nothing to do with the content he added. He then proceeded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=227720058&oldid=227717907 request protection] for the article using, unsurprisingly, another [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVitriulum&diff=218449798&oldid=218449599 sockpuppet] account, [[User:Vitriulum]]. I'm requesting that [[User:Hiram111]] and his accounts be blocked for violation of [[WP:SOCK]], and revert [[Twelver Shi'ism]] back to the consensus version. [[User:GreenEcho|GreenEcho]] ([[User talk:GreenEcho|talk]]) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::GreenEcho rather than such behavior, I think it would be better for you to work for consensus concerning the disputed articles since you had been [[gaming the system]] for more than a month and your distributive editing history is still [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/GreenEcho here], anyway If we are going to continue with this dispute i think the issue will never end since it seems that we both have alot of free time...please recheck your references and our references so we can get over with it and get to consensus since it had been going for over a month .(and I don't think its worth it, to lose such time to say that the Druze belief that caliph Alhakim is God!)
 
And why would a [[Sock Puppet]] use an account that redirects to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVitriulum&diff=218449798&oldid=218449599 other user page] ????.Im not actually that new to wikipedia, I hope you will review your actions and decide if its leading you anywhere. « [[User:Hiram111|<font face="lucida handwriting" color="8B0000">'''Hiram'''<font color="000000">'''111'''</font></font>]]<sup>Δ[[User talk:Hiram111|<font face="lucida handwriting" color="006400">'''TalK'''</font>]] Δ</sup> 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
===Too many sockpuppets used by both sides===
 
:* {{user|Macabricvoid}}, {{user|Vitriulum}} are sockpuppets of {{user|Hiram111}}. Blocked indefinitely. The master account Hiram111 got a week block. Feel free to review this if you feel the duration is short.
 
:* {{User|GreenEcho}} has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of the abandoned (for a reason) {{user|NAccount}}. Please refer to the 7 weeks old archived [[Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Klaksonn|Klaksonn sockpuppetry case]]. Another sock {{user|Enforcing Neutrality}} has been also indef blocked. NAccount for 2 weeks since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFayssalF&diff=217525077&oldid=217337943 this is not the first time] and this user has been heavily abusing multiple accounts. Next time it will be indefinite. Do not create new accounts because you ''are'' not happy with the one you are left with. Request changing your username instead. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== [[Special:Contributions/Moldopodo|User:Moldopodo]] ==
 
{{Userlinks|Moldopodo}} has been mentioning the words "''[[defamation]]''" and "''[[slander]]''" a lot in the last few while since the end of his one month AE block. He has been also accusing editors of defaming and slandering him. IMO, this is in someway an attempt at legal posturing and as such a violation of [[WP:LEGAL]]. As a result of this, I call for a indefinite block and ban of Moldopodo due to (1) his past and current disruptive attitude to the project, and (2) his consistent use of the words "''[[defamation]]''" and "''[[slander]]''" as an attempt to get his way ([[WP:LEGAL]] violation). These sysop actions, if approved through consensus, will be preventive as it will prevent Moldopodo from creating further disruption. [[User:Nat|'''nat.u''']][[User talk:Nat|'''toronto''']] 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
This is borderline....I'm leaning towards a warning, an explaining of [[WP:LEGAL]] and why comments like those aren't acceptable. But... I don't know, I'm going to think a bit more about it, this is just my initial reaction. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Saying someone is slandering you is not a legal threat. Saying you're going to sue someone for slandering you is a legal threat. I'm making no other comment on Moldopodo's behavior, as I haven't looked into it and you haven't provided diffs. If he's being incivil, or disruptive, or something, make your case based on that. But a block (or even a warning) per WP:LEGAL won't fly, IMHO. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::My suggestion of a warning would be discussing civillity and how accusing other editors repeatedly of attacking his character does him no favors. And the explaining of [[WP:Legal]] just so he knows it, and he knows that "slander" and "defamation" are used in legal ways some times, and although accusations of defamation and slander, although not a violation of [[WP:Legal]], aren't good anyway. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:::Oh, FFS. "No legal threats" != "no legal terms", period. This histronic hyper-sensitivity really doesn't help matters any. And your proposed explanation just comes off as condescending, even in theory, and won't defuse the matter in the least. --[[User:Badger Drink|Badger Drink]] ([[User talk:Badger Drink|talk]]) 03:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Yeah you're right, any time we try to educate newer users and give them knowledge of policy is a fucking retarded waste of time. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 03:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Beam, that was inappropriate. Please calm down and try to remain civil yourself. A comment about civility may be in order, considering the user's past history. However, a block for legal threats would be excessive and probably overturned. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Excuse me? Sarcasm and the phrase fucking retarded aren't uncivil. And I suggested a personal warning, no template as well as an informational explanation about what WP:Legal is just to inform. And I definitely did not suggest a block, far from it. I agree with you on that point. :) [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Please understand that when you use the term "fucking retarded", it may be ''misconstrued'' as an incivil personal attack. Even if it's not actually in violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] or [[WP:NPA]], it's still not good anyway. We also have [[WP:OR|a policy against adding unsourced material]], which you may wish to read. See what I mean? I agree that this editor could use some sort of talking-to, but I doubt dragging random bits of policy into said talking-to is going to win the talker-to'er any respect - and with an editor of this sort, it basically boils down to whether or not they respect the community and the project, or not. If you win their respect, things clear up. Make a fool of yourself in their eyes, and it just means further headaches and (likely) an eventual block. --[[User:Badger Drink|Badger Drink]] ([[User talk:Badger Drink|talk]]) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Meh, I was trying to give a way for Nat to feel that he got his point across while being helpful and nice to the user in question. And you're right, my sarcasm wasn't in violation of anything. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Haha, the edit conflict with Hersfold kinda killed the heavy-handed irony I was going for, but anyway! --[[User:Badger Drink|Badger Drink]] ([[User talk:Badger Drink|talk]]) 05:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Tossing around legal terms, while not the best way to get around here, aren't violations of [[WP:NLT]]. There's a reason why it's called "no legal '''threats'''" (emphasis mine). By the way, you can't slander anyone on Wikipedia. —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::You could with an .ogg file... --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, licensing that file is going to be hard. Oh wait, no...you can release it in the public domain. :) —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::An .ogg file uploaded here would be regarded as in permanent form and therefore constitute a [[libel]] rather than a slander, and thus harder to defend. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, after I wrote that last night, I actually read the [[defamation]] article, and realized I misunderstood the difference (it's not spoken vs. written, it appears to be permanent vs. transient). I was kind of hoping no one would notice, but of course there are too many eyeballs here. Why, oh why, couldn't NCMV have speedily archived this sooner, before Rod could see it? --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, there's never one around when you need one is there, then three turn up at once? Not intending to be critical, just getting things right. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Hillock65]] and [[User:Kuban kazak]] ==
 
Would some uninvolved administrator please review the 3rr edit warring situation regarding [[User:Hillock65]] and [[User:Kuban kazak]]? It was reported [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hillock65_reported_by_User:Kuban_kazak_.28Result:_48_hour_block_and_warn_.29|here]] and ended up with only one block despite the fact that they were both edit warring. Note that the other party is just coming off a block for edit warring three weeks ago. This really appears unfair, and it would make sense that either they should both get blocked or both only get warned. The discussion can be found [[User_talk:Hillock65#Gr.C3.A9goire_Orlyk|here]] at Hillock65 talk page. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 03:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:You neglected to mention that [[User:Hillock65]] violated the 3RR rule, [[User:Kuban kazak]] did not, ([[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|"''The rule is breached when an editor makes more than three reverts.''"]]) so don't try to present it as the same thing. While there is a provision that says, "''Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.''", this is up to an administrator's discretion, and I see no problem with the blocking admin treating them differently because their actions were indeed different, [[User:Hillock65]] was the only one who crossed the 3RR line. Also, check their contributions, [[User:Hillock65]] is primarily a revert warrior while [[User:Kuban kazak]] is primarily a content writer. And why are you asking for an "uninvolved administrator", the blocking admin '''was''' an uninvolved administrator. <br/> Furthermore, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hillock65&diff=227649595&oldid=227648804 an uninvolved administrator has already reviewed this decision]. [[User:Hillock65]] has already asked for an administrator to review this decision, and another uninvolved admin ([[User:Mangojuice]]) declined his demand to unblock him/block the other user, saying, "''You made your point about the other editor's behavior on [[WP:AN3]]. While there is a compelling reason to review decisions to block users, the same does not hold for decisions ''not'' to block users. If you don't like the way it was handled, you can take it up with Scarian afterwards, but neither I nor any other admin is likely to reverse Scarian's decision to issue a warning''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hillock65&diff=227649595&oldid=227648804]--[[User:Miyokan|Miyokan]] ([[User talk:Miyokan|talk]]) 05:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:: I've reviewd this and the complainer's complaint seems valid on the surface: The other person (Kk) did three reverts *bangbangbang* and rewarding them for that is inappropiate. Kk has recently been blocked for blind reverting, and the message that "three a day" is not an entitlement clearly needs to be driven home. Heck, the person who was blocked said "please use the talk page" in every edit summary, which Kk chose not to do. No one is lily-white here. - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Lets see then:
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians_in_Russia&diff=227434180&oldid=221345947 15:55, 23 July 2008 I change a blatant mistake]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians_in_Russia&diff=next&oldid=227434180 16:39, 23 July 2008 Hillock reverts without any talk page comment] (1st revert for Hillock)
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians_in_Russia&diff=next&oldid=227441841 13:18, 24 July 2008 I revert the disruption, citing wiki policies under which I did that per [[WP:1RR]]] (1st revert for me)
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians_in_Russia&diff=next&oldid=227622753 14:02, 24 July 2008 Hillock reverts my statement and offers me, with WP:CIVIL to "discuss my grievences on the talk"] (2 reverts for Hillock)
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians_in_Russia&diff=next&oldid=227629438 14:06, 24 July 2008 I revert and point out the [[Talk:Ukrainians in Russia#Kuban section and neutrality|extensive discussion]] on the talk page] (2 reverts for me)
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians_in_Russia&diff=next&oldid=227629998 14:09, 24 July 2008 Hillock remembering [[WP:OWN]] tells me to literally bugger off (again WP:CIVIL)] (3 reverts for Hillock)
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians_in_Russia&diff=next&oldid=227630475 14:35, 24 July 2008 I do a complete copyedit of the article, correct many grammatical mistakes BUT DO NOT TOUCH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION THAT HAS BEEN THE SOURCE OF DEBATE] (so still 2 reverts for me)
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians_in_Russia&diff=next&oldid=227634523 14:43, 24 July 2008 Hillock however does not bother to check the diff, and reverts w/o any though still with the same WP:unCIVIL comment] (4th revert for which he was blocked!)
*I recommend to Ostap, who has been Hillock's [[WP:MEAT]]puppet since he arrived on wikipedia (check the edit pattern for this and many other articles) to leave it per [[WP:STICK]], otherwise feel free to voice your complaints on my RfC which was started a year ago, but got nowhere then, since I don't even watch that page. --[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban Cossack]] ([[User talk:Kuban kazak|По-балакаем?]]) 08:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::You respond in your usual fashion, throwing around baseless accusations. If you continue to do this, I will report it here also. [[User:Ostap R|Ostap]] 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:::Don't make threats that you won't follow through with.--[[User:Miyokan|Miyokan]] ([[User talk:Miyokan|talk]]) 02:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Theserialcomma]] and [[Tucker Max]], part 2 ==
 
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive449 Previous AN/I thread]
 
[[User:Theserialcomma]]'s tenditious editing continues unabated since the last AN/I I filed a little under two weeks ago. He continues to wikilawyer points into the ground. Occasionally he is right, generally he is not - see [[Talk:Tucker Max]] and note that most discussions have been instigated by Theserialcomma.
 
User also demonstrates [[WP:OWN|ownership]] issues - his talk page edits and edit summaries frequently contain things such as "will be removed" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227553436&oldid=227552158] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227537734&oldid=227536414] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=226517053&oldid=226515414] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227543696&oldid=227543622].
 
However, the real problem with this user is his unwillingness to refrain from personal attacks against me. Even if the personal attacks are not strictly "flames", they definitely violate the policy of discuss the argument, not the person.
 
These difs are not in chronological order, sorry. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227778358&oldid=227775445] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227549953&oldid=227546796] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227541452&oldid=227539901] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=226331302&oldid=226330014].
 
When I requested that the user refrain from personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227543397&oldid=227541762], he ignored [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227543696&oldid=227543622], prompting me to perhaps inappropriately lash out at him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227546796&oldid=227543696], however, I stand by every last word of the "lash out". Speaking frankly, what I've tolerated from this user would test the patience of anyone.
 
User also failed to follow the RfC directions and write a neutral statement in the RfC, instead stating his PoV on the disagreement as the RfC summary. I don't have a dif for this as the RfC has ended.
 
As a concluding note, although there is no policy called [[WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE]], Theserialcomma has engaged in hypocritical behavior. Here is a (correct) statement that discussion of individual users does not belong on article talk pages [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=226523652&oldid=226522683], yet, even in the diffs which while antagonistic, I didn't think warrented inclusion in an AN/I writeup, are alway addressed directly to, and about, individual users.
 
[[User:McJeff|McJeff]] ([[User talk:McJeff|talk]]) 06:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:New dif, posted while I was writing this - manages to hit both incivil and OWN at the same time. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATucker_Max&diff=227785729&oldid=227782337] [[User:McJeff|McJeff]] ([[User talk:McJeff|talk]]) 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::I'm not sure if people are allowed to agree on here, but I figured I would give it a shot. It's almost farcical difficult he has been and it's a shame that he's using Wikipedia's own rules against itself. McJeff has been more than patient on this and the article is suffering. He's fighting to have decent sources removed simply out of malice and attempting to drive people away from creating a quality article by making it a frustrating experience - so he can use it to say as he pleases. If something can't be done about him, I think it needs to be locked down. [[User:TheRegicider|TheRegicider]] ([[User talk:TheRegicider|talk]]) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:::Anyone? [[User:McJeff|McJeff]] ([[User talk:McJeff|talk]]) 04:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks ==
 
{{resolved|blocked indef for sockpuppetry}}
*{{User|Lucyintheskywithdada}}, {{User|118.18.193.25}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=prev&oldid=227171460][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=next&oldid=227171460][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ClueBot_IV/WPOPreports/118.18.193.25&oldid=227789484]
*[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lucyintheskywithdada/archive1&diff=188427633&oldid=188209783][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=188426925#Lucyintheskywithdada.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29]
*[[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Comfort women]]
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse]] (maybe related to the matter)
I believe this user in question needs to get an immediate and proper treatment by administrative actions for his behaviors more than disruption: threats, false accusation, harassment, racist attacks, personal attacks, extreme incivility. There has been disputes at [[Comfort women]] since {{User|Ex-oneatf}} added massively plagiarized, sythesis-like and strong POV contents to it after [[Korean war crimes]] written by him was deleted twice for the plagiarism. [[User:Amble|Amble]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=226559915&oldid=226442413] and Admin Fut.Perf[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=226589786&oldid=226581275] spot it, but Ex-oneatf had tried to put some of contents from the deleted article as accusing the former of deleting the content with Korean nationalists' excuse. Due to his continued disruption, he was blocked for 31 hours.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Ex-oneatf]
 
Irrelevant of the content dispute, [[User:Lucyintheskywithdada|Lucyintheskywithdada]] suddenly appeared to revert the article several times without revising it by himself.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AComfort_women&diff=226839837&oldid=226829398] So the disturbance around the plagiarism continued .[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=next&oldid=226843521][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=next&oldid=226846945] until another editors who wants to keep the content revised it. So the problem is seemingly confined to content disputes now. However, in the meantime, Lucyintheskywithdada has kept insulting and harassing people who objects to his strong and aggressive attitudes without any good reason why the content has been kept such as myself, Good friend100, Amble, Fur.Perf.
 
The user's disruptive behaviors does not seem to stoppable. He basically calls me "history revisionist" "anti-Japanese race", "Japanese hater", anti-social person, habitual reverter. I counted the number of how many times I reverted the article in question. I reverted 7 and Lucy reverted 5, so his accusation of "persistent reverter" is unwarranted and Good friend100 who initially pointed on the problem was inactive, so my 2 times more than Rucy is enough to be accused of being as such? Given that Lucy's ISP, his strong anti-Korean sentiment does not justify the insulting accusation. He calls Koreans "Anti-Korean race". I believe this is a racist attack as well.
 
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" width="100%"
|-
|
!Lucyintheskywithdada's insulting comments
* On January 1st, 2023, a discussion is started at [[Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Hardware support]], 2 users (DFlhb and Herbfur) discuss whether or not the "Hardware support" section should remain. DFlhb decides to remove it on January 3rd. However, in [[Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Widespread copyvio]], DFlhb in discussion with other users comes back on his opinion {{tq|I agreed with someone else to delete, but two people isn't remotely a binding consensus}} and on January 23rd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_version_history&diff=1135174177&oldid=1135173692 restores the section] arguing that ({{tq|people seem to value these types of articles for their technical comprehensiveness. I no longer see anything wrong with these tables; they're not exactly redundant, since the present the same information as the first table in a more straightforward, intuitive way}}).
|-
* On May 9th, 2023, Evelyn [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_version_history&diff=1153922871&oldid=1153922703 removes the tables]. This is followed up by User34522938 starting a discussion on the talk page ([[Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Missing hardware support table?]]) requesting the section to be restored.
|*'''The anti-Japanese editors have managed to layer it''' will references to all the usual atrocities[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=next&oldid=227171460]
** Evelyn responds to this {{tq|removed due to severe article bloat (it dramatically increased the post-expand include size)}}.
*Why keep up the pretense Future Perfect? '''Why not just join the honest revisionists like Caspian blue and Good friend100'''?
*** I bring up that the inclusion size isn't a concern, as of the time of that writing, the inclusion of the section would add 238.961 bytes to an article of 438.928 bytes, well below the limit of 2 million bytes. I also point out that the article, before massive parts of its content were wiped out, had a total inclusion size of 1.2 million bytes, still far below the limit. So even if the article is expanded back to its original proportions, there is no issue here.
*1000 propagandistic blogs or race hate websites (which, let's face it, '''is the motivating principle for some editors here''')
*** I also point out that, per [[WP:SPLIT]], if the article becomes to large, the article should be split up. Removing information is antithetical to the goal of Wikipedia.
*The bottomline is, are '''the Anti-Japanese race hate jockeys willing to give up their propaganda''' in order to turn this into a well informed article?
**** Evelyn will go on to never acknowledge the [[WP:SPLIT]] argument and never addresses the fact that the article is well below the size limit. Nontheless, she brings up this argument repeatedly over the next 1.5 year.
*What I see is someone making a big scene, provoking an edit war
**** Nontheless, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:IPod_Touch_supported_OS_release&oldid=1169280629 make changes to the templates] to reduce their size, removing a header I believe to be redundant.
*You are just repeating what Future perfect wrote in respect to another article in support your habitual revisions and edit warring.
** She also claims that {{tq|the table at the top already serves of a sort of "support table" as it already shows "device end-of-life" as a column}}.
*'''Do you find it personally challenging for some reason''' to accept Korean involvement in the Japanese comfort women system or that so many Korean women were forced to be victims of military prostitution for such a long time?''' Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity that you find difficult?'''
*** I point out that the "Device end-of-life" column in the overview only shows the last version supported, but not when support starts. The 2 tables clearly serve a different purpose and have little overlap.
*Is it something that '''you''' would like to discuss privately, perhaps offline because it seems to be bordering on obsessive and interfering with your own and others contributions to the Wikipedia?
*** I also point out that how data is presented is equally important, even if there would be duplicated information.
*My interpretation would be that copying and pasting a private and conciliatory message onto a topic talk page is an act of bad faith, designed to discredit the other, lobby your own level of supporters and a deliberate distraction for others.
**** Evelyn will go on to never acknowledge these arguments. Like the inclusion size, this argment is repeated multiple times.
*it is you that has been persistently reverting the page for sometime now.
** She goes on to argue that {{tq|when support for devices is dropped and said removal of device support is cited, it is displayed in the respective version's overview}}, seemingly referring to the version detail tables as seen in [[iOS version history#iOS 17]].
*'''aggressive, exaggerated and anti-social strategies''' to [[WP:OWN]] said topics such as persistent revisions, deletions, "creative" edit summaries and personal attacks so as to provoke and waste others time.
*** I bring up that that argument doesn't fly. As of even today, only 6 sections have these tables at all (at the time only 2 had them). I argue that we cannot just remove content because future edits may duplicate the information elsewhere.
*Caspian blue (talk · contribs) as it is my belief that they are engaged on long term strategy of WP:OWNership of various Korean-Japan, or Korean-Japan WWII related topics of which the deletion of this topic was only one part.
**** Evelyn never addresses this, but does repeat the same argument in the future.
* '''comfort women or Japanese race hat'''e?
** She goes on to say that {{tq|my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back}}.
*This is about the biggest BS I have ever read in my time on the wikipedia
*** This is the first instance of - in my opinion - [[WP:STONEWALL]]. As I believe this discussion has reached a stalemate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1160161221 I go on to request] a [[WP:THIRD]] as per [[WP:CONTENTDISPUTE]]. I add what I believe is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIOS_version_history&diff=1160165818&oldid=1160093038 fair summary of the arguments so far].
**** User @[[User:Mesocarp|Mesocarp]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIOS_version_history&diff=1160200203&oldid=1160165818 responds to the WP:THIRD request]. She states that "{{tq|I don't think it's quite fair to just say that those tables are obviously "unnecessary" or "bloat."}}", she further request if any sources may need to be added. She also goes on to say that [[WP:NLIST]] may support the tables existance. She also questions if [[WP:NOTACATALOG]] may apply.
***** Evelyn goes on to claim that [[WP:NOTACATALOG]] does apply.
***** In response to this, I bring up that the guidelines described by [[WP:NOTACATALOG]] have no bearing on the content being discussed, and further point out that similar tables can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. I further question if she actually read the policy, as she seemingly just repeats it.
***** Evelyn will never go on to elaborate why [[WP:NOTACATALOG]] would apply.
**** IP user further acknowledges that if the size of the article becomes an issue, that a split should be made, offering the Windows and macOS articles as examples. I believe this is specifically in reference to the [[Windows 10 version history]] and [[macOS version history]] articles.
** In an edit summary, she claims that {{tq|this is a article focused on the development of iOS}} and that thus the section must be removed.
*** I point out that this is not the case, its a version history page and not "Development of iOS", pointing to [[Development of Windows XP]] as an example of such an article. I also point out that if this information should not be on the article at all for this reason, that her prior argument that the information is duplicated elsewhere makes no sense in that context.
*** At this point, I'm starting to have a suspicion that Evelyn is no longer arguing in good faith, seemingly bring up new arguments hoping that one sticks.
** Evelyn will go on to claim that she has {{tq|been an editor of this page for literally years}}. Further claiming that {{tq|those tables with the abundance of checkmarks didn't exist until you added them in February of this year}}.
*** To me, this confirms my earlier suspicion both by seemingly implying [[WP:OWN]], as well as the fact that I was not the one to add these tables, my only edit in February 2023 being an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_version_history&diff=1138269243&oldid=1137991100 update to rename the templates]. This was also my first edit to the iOS version history article, as well as my only edit in February.
**** Evelyn goes on to never address this.
** At various points, Evelyn will bring up that the consensus was to remove the section as discussed in [[Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Hardware support]].
*** I however bring up that 1 of the 2 users involved (DFlhb) self reverted the change and already made clear that he doesn't believe there was consensus to remove the section.
**** Evelyn goes on to never address this. She will however repeatedly claim consensus, claiming that including herself and me, there is a 3 to 1 consensus for removing the tables. Not only is this too an objective lie, this also ignores comments made by other users.
** Evelyn also brings up in an edit summary that {{tq|they are overly visual heavy, which is *awful* for people who are blind. Text is better in this case, for accessibility reasons}}
*** At this point, I fully believe that Evelyn is no longer arguing in good faith as she claims the tables aren't accessible due to their use of templates while questioning that she is not sure they have alt text, an easily verifiable fact. The tables are accessible, as are the templates used in the tables. As someone who uses a screen reader myself, I feel well positioned to make this point. I also point out that if this was the case, that would warrant a request for improvement, and not to outright delete content.
**** Evelyn goes on to respond with {{tq|Accessibility is important, even on encyclopedia platforms like Wikipedia, and those templates are downright awful when it comes to that. Screen readers, to work effectively, require captions, or alt text.}}
***** Note the comment about captions, it will be important later.
***** Both DFlhb and I confirm that the tables are perfectly accessible.
****** Evelyn goes on to never address this.
** At this point, the argument has spanned 1.5 month and Evelyn abandons any discussion and restores the section.
* Starting on November 21st, 2023, without any discussion, Evelyn removes the tables yet again claiming {{tq|remove hw support tables; these tables are getting too unwieldy; the individual iOS version articles already have supported devices in their infobox, and this article is strictly intended for documenting iOS' version history, not what version supports what, and even then, the version overview tables already list supported hardware models}}
** I respond to this claiming that {{tq|Previous discussions on this have resulted in these tables remaining on this page, they are not unwieldy and provide visualization of data that isn't otherwise available anywhere else}}.
** Evelyn responds to with another revert claiming {{tq|yes they are, and there was no consensus to either keep or remove them. these templates are honestly an eyesore and don't belong on the page; esp. not with the checkmarks
}}
** I restore the section again claiming {{tq|Being an "eyesore" is not an argument for removal, nevermind that these kind of tables are all over Wikipedia}} as I believe that her argument is [[WP:WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]].
** Evelyn reverts again, and argues on the talk page ([[Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Missing hardware support table?]]) that I am the only one arguing for the tables to remain. Over the course of this discussion, a lot of the previous arguments are repeated without acknowledging any of the counter arguments.
*** I point out in that in the current discussion alone I'm already not the only person arguing for it.
*** I also point out that removing them because the tables are an "eyesore" is not a valid argument.
** Evelyn also makes the claim that the Wikipedia guidelines say to "avoid information-dense tables unless absolutely necessary".
*** I point out that the tables are a simple matrix.
**** Evelyn goes on to never address this response.
** Evelyn then goes on to say that I am {{tq|the only one who's defending them now, the other one who defended this left Wikipedia}}.
*** I point out that this shows an intention to repeat the discussion until people give up arguing with her, no matter what they say. I futher point out that just because people aren't repeatedly coming to the talk page to defend their earlier stated opinions (opinions that she never countered) doesn't mean she can just ignore it.
** At this point, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1188633652 I request] a [[WP:THIRD]] for the second time.
*** This request is responded to by @[[User:Brusquedandelion|Brusquedandelion]], who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIOS_version_history&diff=1188732812&oldid=1188490874 confirms various of my arguments].
*** As a result of this, a day later, lacking any response, I restore the section.
** At this point, the discussion is yet again abandoned as Evelyn never responds. This eventually results in the discussion being moved to the talk page's archive.
* On September 14th, 2024, Evelyn removes the section again claiming {{tq|once again remove these, these are genuienly becoming incredibly unwieldy, and are a maintenance burden. what happens in 10 years when we're at iOS 28 and iPhone 26? these templates are going to become incredibly hell-ish to maintain (more so than they already are) and quite frankly they don't belong here. this article is a chronological history of iOS releases, these templates genuinely do not belong here}}. Soon thereafter she updates the "See also" section linking directly to the templates as if they are articles.
** I restore the article adding that {{tq|Let's discuss the removal of an entire section on the talk page first... Again... Nothing about these tables is "unwieldy", nor are they a burden to maintain, and neither is a reason to remove them anyways. These are small and very simple tables compared to some complex creations that have come into existence over the years on Wikipedia.}} and open a new discussion with [[Talk:iOS version history#The "Hardware support" section, again]]. Where I point out that the tables are not a maintenance burden and that keeping them up-to-date is a 1 minute job that has to be done at best twice a year, as well as point out that when the article grows to large, it can be split, as can the tables themselves.
*** Evelyn will repeat these claims, but never addresses this counter argument.
** Evelyn responds, repeating the inclusion size argument, as well as the claim that they are a maintenance burden. She also claims that the tables are out of scope for the article saying {{tq|you don't see any other version history articles with these kinds of templates, now do you}}. Finaly, she claims that {{tq|you have made the vast majority of edits to those templates, therefore you are personally biased towards the templates existing within the article}}. She also makes these comments on my personal talk page.
*** At this point, I fully believe I'm justified in assuming that this argument is being held in bad faith as these tables existed for years prior to being turned into templates, during which I never made any edits to them. My other edits were either maintaining the templates by adding new devices and OS releases or directly attempting to address Evelyn's earlier concerns. I point out that she is now essentially saying that my opinion should be completely discarded because I made attempts to compromise.
*** I also point out that we shouldn't link to templates as if they are articles.
**** Evelyn goes on to repeat this argument, but never acknowledge the points raised. She does however use my argument that we shouldn't link to templates as a reason to then remove the templates entirely from the article.
*** I also point out that unlike other version history articles, Apple's ecosystem is uniqly tied together and that this is why tables like this don't exist on other articles like [[Android version history]], etc.
**** Evelyn goes on to never acknowledge this counterpoint, but will repeat this claim.
** Evelyn responds again, repeating the inclusion size argument, but also stating that {{tq|and they also cause a user to have to scroll for longer to get to the bottom sections of the article}} as well as that {{tq|Arguably even now this article is still not encyclopedic material, because a lot of the text is repetitive}}.
*** I respond to this saying that the tables being to long is not a reason to remove them. I also ask her to add a template to request improvement for het "not encyclopedic" argument. She never elaborates on why specifically this isn't encyclopedic and so this isn't an actionable argument.
**** Evelyn never addresses either of these counterpoints.
** Evelyn goes on to claim that {{tq|It should also be noted that the last time someone asked to reinstate these templates, someone other than me literally said that the discussion failed to reach consensus.}}
*** I believe this is in reference to DFlhb as no other similar statements exist, and I point out that they were making the opposite argument; that there was no consensus to remove them.
** Furthermore, Evelyn resorts to start [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_version_history&diff=1245956944&oldid=1245895910 calling me toxic] and disruptive.
** For the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=1245988748 third time], I request a [[WP:THIRD]], this one is at the time of writing still unanswered.
* At this point, the tables are restored to the article and not removed again.
** However, instead Evelyn now begins making various changes to the templates themselves. These include removing OS names and device names, as well as removing the captions (first by moving them into the table header, later removing them entirely).
*** Many of these changes seem to be an attempt to practically made the tables invisible by collapsing them, leaving only their (now drastically shortened) caption as well as removing nearly all context within the tables themselves.
**** This strikes me as an attempt to subvert the ongoing conversation.
*** @[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] and myself at various points bring up that she's removing much of the context and actively making the templates less accessible, citing MOS:ACCESS, MOS:COLHEAD, and MOS:TABLECAPTIONS in various edit summaries as well as on a new discussion Evelyn opened on my talk page at [[User talk:YannickFran#Please avoid the constant reverting]] where we point out that header cells and body text are not a good alternative per those policies as well as general HTML standards. There is a repeated back and forth where Evelyn is asked repeatedly to discuss the changes on the iOS version history talk page. She ignores these requests despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIOS_version_history&diff=1246324516&oldid=1246182631 various comments being made by myself] to address my concerns and give tangable examples of why the changes are problematic.
**** Evelyn only responds on my talk page claiming that many tables exist without captions because {{tq|THEY ARE REDUNDANT}}, in this new discussion, she furthers claims that {{tq|bringing up all kinds of outdated Wikipedia policies that aren’t enforce}} as well as claiming that captions are not needed because {{tq|no effect due to newer MediaWiki and Wikipedia changes}}.
***** I ask her where it is stated that these guidelines are not to be followed anymore, as well as providing sources for how changes to MediaWiki and Wikipedia would have negated the need for these. I further point out that this directly flies in the face of her argument months earlier stating that captions where necessary for screen readers to work properly.
**** Evelyrn also brings up that {{tq|You, at every turn, have been reverting my edits without discussing my changes first}}.
***** Here I point out that I've repeatedly asked her to discuss things and have cited various in my opinion valid reasons and concerns for undoing her changes and that she is the one who has shown an unwillingness to discuss. I also point out that my reverts also included various changes to address other concerns she's had. These changes are further detailed in the iOS version history talk page, but Evelyn never addresses them or my questions in them to elaborate on why certain changes were made.
|}
 
Throughout this all, various reverts and re-reverts were made by both Evelyn and myself. However, I feel like I've provided plenty arguments as to why my reverts were in order on the talk page and have more often than not first continued the discussion on the talk page and waiting for a response, rather than opting to revert, unless I was under the believe that policies like [[WP:ACCESS]] were being broken (mostly with the templates in this case) in which I felt making sure the contents of the article remained accessible was of greater concern. Admittedly, for a few of those reverts on the iOS version history article at the start of the dispute, I should have waited longer or let the discussion go further before restoring the section. Evelyn has reverted with every comment she's made (assuming her changes weren't the latest already) across both the article and templates, as well as made multiple reverts without ever addressing the requests to discuss (at best leaving an edit summary), including reverting other changes by myself and George Ho that were not relevant to the discussion or directly attempted to address her concerns.
Per Lucy's Japanese [[NTT Plala|Plala]] ISP, {{User|118.18.193.25}}[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=next&oldid=227171460], and his long history of trolling and massive sockpuppetry, I believe he is either sock or one of systematic meat/sockpuppeters from [[2channel]], Japanese off-wiki forum.
 
With that, we've come to today. I've asked her yet again to respond to the discussions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYannickFran&diff=1246647697&oldid=1246592277 but she only responds by declining to do so], leaving the tables with various accessibility issues and in general removing context from them even for normal readers. After multiple attempts at dispute resolution, it is clear to me that Evelyn isn't open to any actual discussion (even having said as much herself on multiple occasions), and behaves in a disruptive manner, even often going against her own advice or using arguments that seemingly contradict her previous arguments, ignoring policies and guidelines claiming that they no longer apply (and that somehow that means that we should now do the opposite of those guidelines and policies), ignoring other peoples comments and trying to discard my own by claiming I'm biased because I attempted to address her concerns, and repeatedly lying about DFlhb stance on the matter even after having been repeatedly pointed out that she is incorrect.
After Lucy trolling to Fut[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=227551896&oldid=227479367] and me[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACaspian_blue&diff=227554710&oldid=227342455][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACaspian_blue&diff=227561981&oldid=227555369] at the talk page of [[Comfort women]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=227548260&oldid=227414884] and user pages, Fut gave him a final warning[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALucyintheskywithdada&diff=227577568&oldid=227550565], however his threat is still going on as accusing him of abusing admin tool[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=prev&oldid=227785522]
 
Thank you in advance. [[User:YannickFran|YannickFran]] ([[User talk:YannickFran|talk]]) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
He said he filed a meditation[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACaspian_blue&diff=227561981&oldid=227555369], however he was busy accusing me with personal attacking language[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=prev&oldid=227779095]
 
:This filing and the linked discussions are impenetrably verbose. What is the most concerning type of misconduct, and what three diffs best provide evidence of it? Otherwise, I'm seeing two editors spend far too much time in disagreements that mainly just include the two of them. If third opinions haven't resolved disputes, can [[WP:DRN]] or an [[WP:RFC|RfC]] be tried? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Also his filing meditation [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Comfort women]] is filled with false accusations and personl attacks against me and Fut.Perf. I'm seriously concering about the user's behaviors. He even recreated [[Korean war crimes]] with plagiarism.
::The most concerning issue is User Evelyn's repeated reverts while showing no willingness to discuss disputed changes. For the most recent instance, this concerns changes that break accessibility (and in general make the templates unable to stand on their own even for human readers) of the 3 templates mentioned above multiple times, these concerns have been leveled by both myself and George Ho. Edits from both me and George trying to address these issues have been undone by Evelyn over the past few days without any elaboration as to why. These requests to discuss can be found both at [[User talk:YannickFran#Please avoid the constant reverting.]], and in these edits to the iOS version history talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIOS_version_history&diff=1246324516&oldid=1246182631], as well as in the edit histories of the templates ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:IPhone_supported_OS_release&action=history]). In her edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIPhone_supported_OS_release&diff=1246284522&oldid=1246274444], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIPhone_supported_OS_release&diff=1246432191&oldid=1246324509]), and comments on the talk pages ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYannickFran&diff=1246444082&oldid=1246438487]), she dismisses concerns about accessibility claiming she thinks her changes "look better", claiming Wikipedia MOS and policies like [[MOS:ACCESS]] are invalid, and dismisses any argument brought up by me because I am "to biased" because I made edits previously (which co-incidentally were mostly attempts to address her previous concerns) or refuses to discuss entirely ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYannickFran&diff=1246647697&oldid=1246592277]). [[User:YannickFran|YannickFran]] ([[User talk:YannickFran|talk]]) 15:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Since Fut.Perf is getting involved in the matter, other admin's opinion on this would be appreciated.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 08:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the shorter summary. I don't see "showing no willingness to discuss disputed changes" supported by the diffs you provided, and I'm seeing this all in the context of ''too much'' discussion between the two of you. Once you've co-authored a novella, it's time to call in outside voices, with [[WP:3O]] being just a first step in that process.
:::I am concerned about an edit summary like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIPhone_supported_OS_release&diff=1246432191&oldid=1246324509 this one], including {{tqd|"WP:<insert shorthand here> policies aren’t enforceable"}}. {{yo|Evelyn Harthbrooke}} care to (succinctly) explain? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::The "unwillingness to discuss disputed changes" stems in my opinion from both the preceding conflict in which she says "{{tq|my stance is firm. the device support tables aren't being added back}}" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IOS_version_history/Archive_7#c-Evelyn_Marie-20230614111800-YannickFran-20230612072900]) (among other instances with the same sentiment) as well as the repeated requests to discuss and elaborate being left unanswered (both this recent dispute as well as the entire argument) and refusing to acknowledge any counterpoints and continuing to repeat earlier disproved claims. Admittedly, much of that happened prior to the limited scope I established in the comment you're responding to. For an example that does fall within the scope, the afformentioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIOS_version_history&diff=1246324516&oldid=1246182631 comments in these 4 edits] I made where made on the 17th and 18th of September and in the edit summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIPhone_supported_OS_release&diff=1246324509&oldid=1246292883 this edit] on September 18th, I link to the talk page in hopes to discuss it, but the discussion there is never answered, while she does comment elsewhere, she doesn't address any of the issues raised (other than repeating previous arguments like that policies aren't valid, which I think is fair to say isn't an argument). [[User:YannickFran|YannickFran]] ([[User talk:YannickFran|talk]]) 16:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::: YF, that's just not strong enough evidence. After tireless discussion, a lack of response in the two days since you posted those comments is not misconduct. I'm not a fan of comments like the "my stance" one, it's from more than a year ago. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::: For the record, I'm not saying that it is for this scope, I'm only saying that it felt like that sentiment remained going into this discussion for the 3rd time, and at this point I'm more than willing to regard it all as irrelevant if a solution can be found. As for recent events, I feel like it is important to note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYannickFran&diff=1246433987&oldid=1245766392 her accusation of me] {{tq|reverting [her] edits without discussing my changes first}} came after the comments I made on the iOS version history talk page. Of course she isn't obliged to answer, but between her comments days earlier dismissing anything I said because of a perceived "bias" and past discussions I hope it is understandable that it came across as such. --[[User:YannickFran|YannickFran]] ([[User talk:YannickFran|talk]]) 20:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I made that comment admittedly without looking at the whole revision history of the templates, since that moment I have gone through the whole revision history and saw that someone else created the templates and made the bulk of edits to them, therefore you aren't the creator nor the main contributor to the templates, and I apologize. - [[User:Evelyn Harthbrooke|Evelyn Harthbrooke]] ([[User_talk:Evelyn Harthbrooke|leave a message]] · [[Special:Contributions/Evelyn Harthbrooke|contributions]]) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I was never unwilling to discuss any changes that were disputed; I was just never alerted to the discussions either by ping or by mention on my talk page, I don't have my eyes on talk pages for every article I edit. If a discussion wants to be held and I am asked to participate in it, I only ask that I am pinged about it. But to accuse me of being unwilling to participate in discussions is untrue. - [[User:Evelyn Harthbrooke|Evelyn Harthbrooke]] ([[User_talk:Evelyn Harthbrooke|leave a message]] · [[Special:Contributions/Evelyn Harthbrooke|contributions]]) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Just to be clear, they're not the only two users involved in this dispute—that article's talk page has seen at least a couple years or so of spirited discussion from various parties of whether those tables should be included or not, although the two of them have been particularly enthusiastic participants from what I've seen. When I gave a 3O (I'm a "she" btw Yannick :P) I saw policy arguments in favor of both sides. I think it would be great if everyone involved would simmer down a bit and approach the discussion with more of an eye towards achieving consensus; at the same time I recognize that it's hard because both sides tend to be convinced that policy is with them, and the issue doesn't leave that much space to compromise. It is a bit strange that an RfC has never been held on that page from what I can see—Yannick, did you consider starting one at any point? It might possibly be more productive than raising the issue here; I kind of felt like it had gone beyond the point where 3O could reasonably help even at the time I arrived. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ[[User:Mesocarp|🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟]]ම𛱘‎🥑《 [[User_talk:Mesocarp|𔑪‎talk〗⇤]] 19:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::: Thanks for speaking up. I didn't mean to ignore the participation of others, but the linked discussions are certainly dominated by the two. I agree about starting an RfC being a good next step. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Just to clarify, are we talking about creating an RfC in regards to the concerns about the content of the templates itself that we're now addressing in this comment three, or about creating and RfC for whether or not the templates should remain on [[iOS version history]] (which I believe is what Mesocarp meant given she mentions creating an RfC in reference to the earlier discussions), or both? [[User:YannickFran|YannickFran]] ([[User talk:YannickFran|talk]]) 20:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It depends on what there's still disagreement on. I would have an easier time giving concrete suggestions with Evelyn's input. What I understand right now is that a year-and-a-half ago or so, there was intense disagreement on whether the tables should be there at all, and now there seem to be some complicated arguments between the two of you (and George Ho?) about how <em>much</em> the tables should be there? :P Maybe it would make sense to have the RfC present a set of gradations from "no tables" to "full tables" with some in-between options? This would probably make more sense to begin hashing out on the article's talk page than here, of course. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ[[User:Mesocarp|🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟]]ම𛱘‎🥑《 [[User_talk:Mesocarp|𔑪‎talk〗⇤]] 20:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::My view is that the tables do not belong on the article in question. For the bulk of the article's lifespan (from 2008 until 2022), those templates weren't present. I originally removed them shortly after they were first added (I believe early last year is when these discussions first started), as I felt that they fell out of scope with regard to the article's focus, which is being an overview of each iOS version, not as a one-size-fits-all article that lists each device and every single iOS version they run ([[List of iPhone models]] does this incredibly well, and is in my opinion where this information is best suited, even if its not all in one list with x's and checkmarks's). It is my view, and has been since they were originally instated, that these tables fall out of scope. The main reason being is that I believe they are better suited to exist on the core device articles if they really have to exist, due to their higher relevancy and prominence. They receive significantly more views than the iOS version history article. The tables in question also significantly increase the post-expand include size of the article, which has a fixed limit of around 2,000,000 bytes, and due to the templates, it is currently sitting at around 937513/2097152 bytes, whereby without them it would sit at roughly 559291/2097152 bytes.
::::::::This, while disputed by Yannick as being fine, is not fine. It hinders the long term expansion of the article, especially as Apple releases new iOS versions and updates. It also hinders article load times and puts pressure on the servers. It is an issue as if the post-expand include size is exceeded, it can introduce major problems such as citations failing to be included in the article as the article gets expanded. These three templates alone due to their heavy template usage ''within'' these templates are so heavy that they add over 380,000 bytes to the include size. While I have given this argument before, we need to actively keep the article under this limit due to the problems I mentioned.
::::::::However, my core complaint is that I genuinely and wholeheartedly believe that these templates fall out of the scope of what the article is intended to cover.
::::::::The problem is, Yannick refused to listen to any of my past reasoning, no matter how many reasons I gave. They also continuously accused me of "repeating nonsensical arguments", without understanding the long-term problems that these templates introduce, such as with future article expansion as I mentioned. Why would I shift my view, when I firmly believe that my reasons do make sense?
::::::::I have never intentionally nor purposely partaken in any bad faith discussions nor tried to be disruptive. - [[User:Evelyn Harthbrooke|Evelyn Harthbrooke]] ([[User_talk:Evelyn Harthbrooke|leave a message]] · [[Special:Contributions/Evelyn Harthbrooke|contributions]]) 23:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's okay for you to have your position, of course. It's fine for Yannick to have theirs as well. I'd say both of y'all have made some solid arguments and I don't think either of you is likely to ever convince the other. Bringing the larger community into the content debate would really help I think. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ[[User:Mesocarp|🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟]]ම𛱘‎🥑《 [[User_talk:Mesocarp|𔑪‎talk〗⇤]] 00:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I've never argued that the size limit wouldn't eventually become a problem. As a matter of fact, I've even repeatedly told you that a solution to the size limit problem was a [[WP:SPLIT]], but there it would be more sensible to follow the lead of others articles like the macOS and Windows version histories and move the version details to their dedicated articles (some of which already today include their own version details), but that's a [[Talk:iOS version history#Proposal to split article at iOS 20 release|different discussion entirely]]. Nonetheless, reaching a technical limit of Wikipedia should ''never'' be an argument to remove something. The tables were moved to the iOS version history article on [http://web.archive.org/web/20221020121937/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history October 20th, 2022], you removed them for the first time on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_version_history&diff=1153922871&oldid=1153922703 May 9th, 2023] so "{{tq|I originally removed them shortly after they were first added}}" is not true. [[User:YannickFran|YannickFran]] ([[User talk:YannickFran|talk]]) 11:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Apologies for the incorrect pronouns. I tried using they/them whenever I didn't know, and missed it for you.
:::::Having said that, after that first 3O the discussion died down and with ended with Evelyn restoring the section and abandoning the discussion. Soon after the second 3O, the same happened. So in both instances I didn't feel like it had to be pursued any further because at that point I believed the discussion was over. When the discussion restarted, I operated partially on the assumption that it would be considered a "new" discussion and didn't want to immediately jump to an RfC, the same for the second time the discussion started again earlier this month (especially sine it now had been long enough for the original discussion to have been archived). It just felt "to quick", I guess. However, the accusations of bias, calling me toxic and disruptive, claiming I refused to discuss anything despite the proof to the contrary, and claiming that policies don't apply felt like an escalation which is why I came here. Especially the policy issue feels like a matter that a normal users wouldn't be able to counter, given both George Ho and I already tried. [[User:YannickFran|YannickFran]] ([[User talk:YannickFran|talk]]) 19:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's okay, no worries.
::::::Speaking realistically, I think, if you have a dispute with an editor and one 3O hasn't settled the matter, getting another is kind of unlikely to sway them. 3O isn't binding or definitive or anything, it's just a way to bring in another editor—it works best on distant, obscure pages where two users are locked in a dispute with little hope of a third party turning up, and where both users are prepared to work with the person who arrives to find consensus. An RfC can be more helpful in cases where there are more than two editors nearby who visibly care, and especially when the content dispute is really thorny and the major sides all have reasonable-sounding policy arguments available, which is how this seems to me at least from what I've read so far.
::::::An RfC can bring an argument to a much more definitive close than general discussion can. If one editor keeps editing an article in obvious contravention of a recent RfC, it makes for a much stronger and more convincing case that they're being disruptively inflexible than if there's just been general discussion about it, especially when that discussion has been kind of inconclusive. Browsing around in the links you posted, I can see that things have gotten kind of nasty between the two of you at certain points, but given that y'all have been arguing on-and-off about the same article for nearly two years or something I'm honestly impressed that both of you have kept your cool as much as you have. ;^^ Not to overlook anything that's happened conduct-wise—if you want to pursue that angle more, you can, I just think both of y'all might find an RfC to be more of a relief in a way, since it could help put the matter more definitively to rest for now even where other editors are concerned. This is ultimately a challenging and complex content dispute, and whatever happens here it will remain that way intrinsically. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ[[User:Mesocarp|🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟]]ම𛱘‎🥑《 [[User_talk:Mesocarp|𔑪‎talk〗⇤]] 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::That edit summary was made without thinking; I used improper wording at a time when I was quite tired. What I was trying to say is that Wikipedia style guide policies are not consistently enforced; each article on Wikipedia can differ vastly from the written MOS guidelines due to the vast number of articles that exist. However, specifically with regard to the usage of tables, I have seen more captions be used when tables aren't the core focus of a given section, and additional context is needed to understand what the table's given purpose is, and less captions used when tables are the core focus of a section, or even article, such as on TV show episode list articles. However, my changes on [[iOS version history]] with regard to the hardware support templates, were to better separate the tables instead of being in one section, and allowing people to go to a specific hardware support template if necessary via the table of contents, which in my opinion does better for accessibility than table captions, as in my mind they add unnecessary content duplication. Arguably, even the body text in Hardware support isn't necessary as the context implied by the table rows and columns is that they deal with the minimum and maximum OS versions supported by each released model of either an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch. I made the changes based on that context and understanding of my experience with editing, reading, and taking in a wide variety of other Wikipedia articles, including articles that have received Good Article or Featured Article status due to their high quality. My changes weren't made to cause accessibility in the tables to regress or anything of that sort. My changes were made to simplify the templates, and allow better separation in the section in question. - [[User:Evelyn Harthbrooke|Evelyn Harthbrooke]] ([[User_talk:Evelyn Harthbrooke|leave a message]] · [[Special:Contributions/Evelyn Harthbrooke|contributions]]) 23:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:Okay, I've made an [[Talk:iOS version history#Planning an RfC/RfCs to settle the table format question(s) | RfC planning section]] where we can take this up in full, if y'all are interested. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ[[User:Mesocarp|🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟]]ම𛱘‎🥑《 [[User_talk:Mesocarp|𔑪‎talk〗⇤]] 00:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:For the record, I never ''once'' lied about DFlhb's stance on the matter, nor was I even talking about that editor. When I brought up the consensus thing in the most recent discussion, it was in reference to a Semi-protected edit request created on November 23, 2023, where the user Lilu126 responded with the following: "{{tq|The discussion above (#Missing hardware support table?) failed to reach consensus on this issue. Please continue or restart the conversation to seek consensus before reactivating this request.}}"
:That is where I firmly understood that there was no consensus reached on the original issue, which was whether or not the templates should be reinstated, and as no consensus was reached, they shouldn't have been re-added, which is where the issues start. As consensus was never reached, the tables shouldn't have been added back, yet they were; now I am confused as to who re-instated them, but whoever did shouldn't have done so without consensus to re-instate them. DFlhb never even participated in the discussion to give a concrete opinion, they only mentioned the Overview table but did not chime in on the hardware support tables directly, they only participated in the conversation when the copyright violations were taking place, and they were talking about the release notes tables in that argument, so they never once directly argued for or against the tables according to the original discussion in Archive #7 of the iOS version history talk page.
:I have also never once intentionally or purposely acted in bad faith. I have always, to the best of my ability, tried to follow and understand Wikipedia's Manual of Style and respect that as best I can. However I am by no means a perfect editor, I make mistakes. But I genuinely do not believe that my template changes (removing the caption and revamping the version fields to use sub columns (iPhone OS and iOS for example)) cause any regressions to accessibility. Even then, I do firmly believe that the templates in question do not have a place on that article, so in that respect, my stance on that is respectfully firm. - [[User:Evelyn Harthbrooke|Evelyn Harthbrooke]] ([[User_talk:Evelyn Harthbrooke|leave a message]] · [[Special:Contributions/Evelyn Harthbrooke|contributions]]) 00:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::That's kinda the crux of this entire discussion. You keep saying that a consensus had to be reached to keep the tables, despite that at that point the only discussion about it had concluded to keep them. At no point was there ever a consensus to remove them. You have repeatedly claimed that (presumably) based on [[Talk:iOS version history/Archive 7#Hardware support]] despite that one of the 2 people involved there (DFlhb) just a week later changed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IOS_version_history/Archive_7#c-DFlhb-20230112144000-SSoto21-20230109172500 their position to support] the tables remaining which they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_version_history&diff=1135174177&oldid=1135173692 re-iterated when they self reverted]. This has been pointed out multiple times, but you have repeatedly claimed a consensus was needed to keep them ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOS_version_history&diff=1162710638&oldid=1162702853], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IOS_version_history/Archive_7#c-Evelyn_Harthbrooke-20231204204700-Evelyn_Marie-20230516173200]). Months later in May the first discussion was had, they continued to remain on the article afterwards, more months passed, you removed them, the protected edit request was made, and I reverted the article to its original state and requested again to discuss it first per [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS]] where my opinion was joined by others, and you were the only one arguing against.
::As for the accessibility issues, let me be clear that accessibility is not the end-all-be-all, I'm more than happy to agree with that. But it is still important and even if the relevant policies wouldn't be enforced anymore (which they are), that isn't a reason to go out of our way to do the exact opposite of what these policies said and remove existing accessibility tools. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IOS_version_history#c-YannickFran-20240917181700-YannickFran-20240917171800|Explicit examples had been given] as to why the changes were problematic, especially for screen readers (even now, keeping the navbar in the header is not something that should be done). Saying that you "do not believe that my template changes cause any regressions to accessibility" after it had been pointed out that they did with both examples and policies, that doesn't feel like an honest argument (especially not when the only answer to that from you boiled down to "this looks prettier and policies aren't enforceable"). Captions exist for a reason. Body text, header cells, and headings aren't a replacement for captions. Pretty much every image on Wikipedia has a caption, even though they are (pretty much) always accompanied by a header and body text that already describes the subject for the very same reason. This isn't even just Wikipedia policies, this is generally how HTML functions and how screen readers deal with that. [[User:YannickFran|YannickFran]] ([[User talk:YannickFran|talk]]) 11:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::DFlhb was saying bring back the hardware support tables ''if'' the version overview tables (showing compatible devices) weren't brought back, from what I'm understanding with regard to their phrasing. They weren't saying to bring them back non-conditional, and in my view, they do not have a place on the article. From 2008 to Oct 2022, they never existed. There are no valid reasons to have these hardware support templates on an article related to discussing the history of iOS, not how long each device supports what iOS version. The iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch articles are where they belong, especially considering that combined, the respective device articles receive significantly more page views than iOS version history (see [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=IOS_version_history%7CIPhone%7CIPad%7CIPod_Touch here] for what I mean). Therefore I genuinely believe that these templates have more of a purpose existing on the individual device articles than iOS version history.
:::I raise one of my original points again: No other version history article, including Android's, lists all Android models to have ever shipped and their original and latest Android version. Granted, the scope that Android covers goes far beyond just smartphones and tablets, but I thought I would make this comparison because iOS is still its own entity, the only things that iOS version history should cover is the general chronological history of the operating system, which was its purpose for over 14 years, before an editor decided to (without seeking consensus) to move the hardware support templates over to the article, without even getting feedback from the community on whether or not it was a good idea. And in my view, these templates should've never been transferred over. I firmly believe, like I've mentioned several times, that they belong on the individual device articles. And even then, each iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch model, in the infobox, shows its original iOS version, and the final or current iOS version that was made available for the device.
:::I did say I would no longer fight for their removal, but I have realized that this is something I should fight for. If an RFC is held, and a conclusion is reached to keep the hardware support tables on the article, instead of them existing on their respective articles, then I will respect that. Until then I vehemently disagree with these tables disrupting the content flow and purpose of the article. The overview table is fine, it shows a compact overview of each iOS version, the given release date, and the device EOL. We don't need a table that duplicates information. You have originally said that the overview does not provide the same information, but the overview could be changed to add a "Initial devices" column showing what iOS version appeared on what devices, adopting the same approach as the hardware support templates but without having to have three individual templates on the page, and potentially rendering the dedicated Hardware Support tables unnecessary, as the information the reader needs would be in the Overview table at the top, instead of all the way at the bottom. That would be another solution instead of moving the templates back to the individual device articles; it would also reduce the amount of tables that need to be maintained. - [[User:Evelyn Harthbrooke|Evelyn Harthbrooke]] ([[User_talk:Evelyn Harthbrooke|leave a message]] · [[Special:Contributions/Evelyn Harthbrooke|contributions]]) 03:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:I have re-instated the table captions, after reading the table MOS further, and I have removed the repetitive body text in the Hardware support section, however I have kept the subheadings to continue allowing easier navigation to each template. - [[User:Evelyn Harthbrooke|Evelyn Harthbrooke]] ([[User_talk:Evelyn Harthbrooke|leave a message]] · [[Special:Contributions/Evelyn Harthbrooke|contributions]]) 02:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Storrs-Mansfield ==
:Hmm. Caspian blue's complaint is, as usual, rather long-winded and adds a few irrelevant details. But I too, find Lucyintheskywithdada's behaviour to be seriously objectionable. After I did some work trying to clean up [[Comfort women]] from plagiarism and tendentious editing, she accused me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=prev&oldid=227551896]: claiming that I have "an axe to grind", making dark insinuations that I have ''"personal involvement that this topic raises in a difficult manner"'', of a kind that I might ''"prefer not to put it in public"'' (this essentially means she is suspecting me of having some sort of involvement with forced prostitution or war crimes.)
:Earlier she repeatedly accused me of "censorship", and also asked me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&diff=prev&oldid=227548260]: ''"Why keep up the pretense Future Perfect? Why not just join the honest revisionists"'' (so I am a dishonest revisionist then?). She closed with the rhetorical question of whether my involvement was due to ''"the topic about the women or Japanese race hate?"'')
 
:These are very grave insinuations against my honor and integrity as a person and an editor. She was making similar dark insinuations about Caspian blue. If "no personal attacks" means anything on this project, this is the kind of fundamental attack on a user's personality that is completely unacceptable.
 
A couple of IP editors ({{u|137.99.142.46}} and {{u|98.191.14.194}} to name two specifically) have been engaged in a widespread campaign to attempt to rename [[Storrs, Connecticut]] to '''Storrs-Mansfield'''. A move request was entered in September 2023 (see [[Talk:Storrs, Connecticut]]), and the request was soundly rejected by the community. These IP editors have made changes across en.wiki to implement this change without consensus. [[User talk:98.191.14.194]] contains a discussion in which the IP is unwilling to concede to multiple other editors on the issue. Since this appears to be a widespread abuse issue, this was the only venue I could think to address it. [[User:WikiDan61|<span style="color: green;">WikiDan61</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 11:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:Now this person wants "mediation" with me and Caspian blue. I refuse to have anything to do with this as long as those accusations are on the table. I want an unreserved apology, or I want her blocked / topic-banned. I made the "mistake" earlier of getting into a content discussion on the article, so I'm no longer "uninvolved", or I would have blocked her for her repeated plagiarism alone by now. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:They may have a point, even the official website of Mansfield, that Storrs is part of, lists its address as Storrs Mansfield. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 13:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::Hmm, I shorten my original draft, but it still seems to be lengthy.
::IThen alsothey begincan tostart doubta thatproper thediscussion useron wouldthe betalk [[User:Documentingabuse]]. The two uses same ISPpage and havegain sameconsensus. agenda, deep grudge against me.--[[UserSpecial:Caspian blueContributions/173.22.12.194|Caspian blue173.22.12.194]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue173.22.12.194|talk]]) 0914:2701, 2520 JulySeptember 20082024 (UTC)
:::Agreed. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 14:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: The USPS, for reasons of their own, lists the post office name for this place as "Storrs-Mansfield" (possible because the post office serves multiple localities). This does not make the name a [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. The discussion happened, in September 2023, at [[Talk:Storrs, Connecticut]], and the [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] was that the name change was not appropriate. The two IP editors are essentially edit-warring across multiple articles to make and keep this name change. I'm asking for a temporary block so that the discussion (currently at [[User talk:98.191.14.194]], but more properly at [[Talk:Storrs, Connecticut]], can reach a new consensus. (How long is consensus valid for? Is last year's consensus no longer valid?) [[User:WikiDan61|<span style="color: green;">WikiDan61</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:WikiDan61|ChatMe!]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiDan61|ReadMe!!]]</sub> 14:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::While the website itself lists it's postal address as '''Storrs-Mansfield''', a lot of it's contents alternate between that and a standalone '''Storrs''' for addresses.
:::::Some examples for a standalone ''Storrs'' are at [https://www.mansfieldct.gov/2484/Playgrounds Playgrounds], [https://www.mansfieldct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11036/Proposed-Zoning-Map-Amendment-04-29-2021?bidId= a Proposed Zoning Map Amendment], [https://www.mansfieldct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18946/01102024?bidId= community flyers], [https://www.mansfieldct.gov/1896/Food-Programs Food programs], and [https://www.mansfieldct.gov/1951/Frequently-Asked-QuestionsResults FAQs]. It's quite inconsistent, though the address at the base of the site may be optimised for the USPS system.
:::::Storrs would come across as the [[Wikipedia:COMMONNAME]] though, and the previous consensus appeared to have been decided as such from looking at the talk page. [[User:R0paire-wiki|R0paire-wiki]] ([[User talk:R0paire-wiki|talk]]) 15:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'll keep an eye on this dispute there, I'm a UConn fan and have also hiked Mansfield Hollow so I know the area well enough to help out. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 16:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:This matter is not an edit war and should not even be up for debate. It is an example of Wikipedia editors reversing edits which improve articles based on correct, official, and truthful information - with properly added citations in the article, supported by numerous accurate and substantial primary and secondary sources. It is an example of reversals without the inclusion of replacement citations. It is an example of "consensus" disregarding official sources and the overwhelming community usage of this name. And most of all it is an example of editors involved who do not live in, have nothing to do with, and have maybe never even heard of the community in question or, if they have, they have not made it clear. (The ''only'' example is the single user here who claims they've visited.)
{{hat|I'll make it more clear then: You may not abuse this talkpage to present lengthy arguments about content, that isn't its purpose}}
:The official and legitimate name of the community anchored by the main campus of the University of Connecticut is named Storrs-Mansfield. This community, encompassed by the areas of ZIP Codes 06268 and 06269, was named after early settlers Major Moses Mansfield and the Storrs family, both of whom owned a majority of land in the Town of Mansfield. The other community within the municipality is Mansfield Center, encompassed by the area of ZIP Code 06250. ZIP Code 06269 was established as a boundary of the University of Connecticut property, including but not limited to its use in the USPS' mail contexts, but it doesn't exist outside of 06268 as it were.
:Storrs-Mansfield does not have its own municipal government. The Town of Mansfield is the municipality and is actually the smallest entity of distinction at the state level. Storrs-Mansfield is commonly considered a [[Village#Unincorporated villages|village]], but it is not incorporated.
:The argument hangs on the fact that there is a census-designated place with a name label of "Storrs" which does include a boundary within the village of Storrs-Mansfield and town of Mansfield, '''but''' itself does not include businesses, residences, or significant features associated with, identified with, and labeled as being in Storrs-Mansfield. (Or, for the sake of the argument, in "Storrs" either.) The other example used in the discussion was "Downtown Storrs", which is not an official name nor is it commonly used. The area that the editor was referencing is officially referenced as the Mansfield Downtown Partnership.
:As is common knowledge, and is not in dispute here at Wikipedia, census-designated places do not have any legal status or standing, being created exclusively for statistical purposes. In fact, their use have actually been superseded by the Census Bureau themselves in favor of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. In our case, Storrs-Mansfield is encompassed by ZCTA5 06268 and ZCTA5 06269, and Mansfield Center is encompassed by ZCTA 06250. Census-designated place boundaries, geographies, and names do not have any relationship with or bearing on local or state government and do not match with what citizens and community members know to be their community. This is the case here. Place names are arbited by and are supremely determined by the United States Postal Service and it is inappropriate to use a census-designated place name when it does not represent a majority of what the article is actually about, and in both cases, the actual community at hand.
:When corrective edits were initiated here on Wikipedia, correct and verifiable references were included that were properly cited in the article. These included official sources, from the Town of Mansfield, which corroborated and accurately listed the addresses of municipal and town-related facilities as being in Storrs-Mansfield. The references also included listings from local businesses, utilities, and federal entities which all support the name of the community being named Storrs-Mansfield. '''Storrs-Mansfield is the official and supported name of this community.''' When other editors reversed these constructive edits, they did not provide any verifiable or official sources to support the destructive edit.
:{{quote|'''Storrs-Mansfield''' ({{IPAc-en|s|t|ɔːr|z| |ˈ|m|æ|n|s|f|i|l|d}} {{respell|storz| |MANS|feeld}}) is a village and [[census-designated place]] (CDP) in the [[New England town|town]] of [[Mansfield, Connecticut|Mansfield]] in eastern [[Tolland County, Connecticut|Tolland County]], [[Connecticut]], United States.<ref name="zipcode06268">{{cite web |author1-link=ZIP Code |title=ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06268 |url=https://tools.usps.com/zip-code-lookup.htm?citybyzipcode |website=United States Postal Service |publisher=[[United States Postal Service]] |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |page=[[ZIP Code]] 06268|quote=YOU ENTERED: 06268 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT}}</ref><ref name="zipcode06269">{{cite web |author1-link=ZIP Code |title=ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06269 |url=https://tools.usps.com/zip-code-lookup.htm?citybyzipcode |website=United States Postal Service |publisher=United States Postal Service |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |page=ZIP Code 06269 |quote=YOU ENTERED: 06269 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT}}</ref><ref name="citebundle">{{Unbulleted list citebundle | {{cite web |title=Storrs-Mansfield Post Office |url=https://tools.usps.com/locations/home.htm?location=1383693 |website=United States Postal Service |publisher=United States Postal Service |quote=9 CHARLES SMITH WAY STORRS MANSFIELD, CT 06268-9998}}| {{cite web |title=7 Day Forecast for Storrs-Mansfield, CT |url=https://forecast.weather.gov/zipcity.php?inputstring=Storrs%20Mansfield |website=National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |publisher=National Weather Service |quote=Extended Forecast for Storrs Mansfield CT}} | {{cite web |title=Daily Summaries Location Details: Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268 |url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/locations/ZIP:06268/detail |website=Climate Data Online - National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) |publisher=National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |quote=Location Details - Name: Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Town Manager |url=https://www.mansfieldct.gov/Directory.aspx?did=43 |website=Town of Mansfield Staff Directory |publisher=[[Mansfield, Connecticut]] |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Physical Address: 4 S Eagleville Road, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Town Clerk |url=https://www.mansfieldct.gov/Directory.aspx?did=42 |website=Town of Mansfield Staff Directory |publisher=Mansfield, Connecticut |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Physical Address: 4 S Eagleville Road, Audrey P. Beck Building, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Can I reach the Town Council through the Town Manager’s Office? |url=https://www.mansfieldct.gov/faq.aspx?qid=125 |website=Town of Mansfield FAQs |publisher=Mansfield, Connecticut |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Yes. Requests to the Town Council can be addressed to: Town Council, 4 South Eagleville Rd, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268.}} | {{cite web |title=Mansfield Fire Stations |url=https://www.mansfieldct.gov/1983/Mansfield-Fire-Stations |website=Town of Mansfield Fire Department |publisher=Mansfield, Connecticut |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Station 107: 879 Stafford Road (Route 32), Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268 - Station 207: 1722 Storrs Road (Route 195), Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268 - Station 307: 999 Storrs Road, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Senior Center |url=https://www.mansfieldct.gov/Directory.aspx?did=44 |website=Town of Mansfield Senior Center |publisher=Mansfield, Connecticut |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Physical Address: 303 Maple Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Public Works |url=https://www.mansfieldct.gov/Directory.aspx?did=38 |website=Town of Mansfield Public Works |publisher=Mansfield, Connecticut |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Physical Address: 4 S Eagleville Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268 - Town Garage: 230 Clover Mill Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Mansfield Downtown Partnership |url=https://www.mansfieldct.gov/Directory.aspx?did=49 |website=Town of Mansfield Downtown Partnership |publisher=Mansfield, Connecticut |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Physical Address: 23 Royce Circle, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268 - Mailing Address: PO Box 513, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Contact Us |url=https://www.mansfieldct.gov/1706/Contact-Us |website=Town of Mansfield Parks and Recreation |publisher=Mansfield, Connecticut |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Located in the Mansfield Community Center: 10 S Eagleville Road, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Hours and Location |url=https://mansfieldpubliclibraryct.org/2119/Hours-and-Location |website=Town of Mansfield Public Library |publisher=Mansfield, Connecticut |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Mansfield Library Express: 23 Royce Circle, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268 - Maple Road Library: 303 Maple Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Contact Us - Main Campus |url=https://www.eosmith.org/ |website=[[E. O. Smith High School|Edwin O. Smith High School]] |publisher=Regional School District 19 |location=Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut |quote=Edwin O. Smith High School: 1235 Storrs Road, Storrs-Mansfield, CT 06268}} | {{cite web |title=Storrs Mansfield, CT Business Internet, Phone and TV Service |url=https://www.spectrum.com/business/service/connecticut/storrs-mansfield |website=Spectrum Business |publisher=[[Charter Communications]] |quote=Unbeatable Business Internet, Phone and TV for Storrs Mansfield, CT - Keeping your business connected with the communication services you need.}}| {{cite web |title=CVS stores near me in Storrs Mansfield, CT |url=https://www.cvs.com/store-locator/cvs-pharmacy-locations/Connecticut/Storrs-Mansfield |website=CVS Store Locator |publisher=[[CVS Pharmacy|CVS]] |quote=632 MIDDLE TURNPIKE STORRS MANSFIELD, CT, 06268 - 8 ROYCE CIRCLE, (TS-3) STORRS MANSFIELD, CT, 06268}}| {{cite web |title=Dunkin' locations in Storrs Mansfield |url=https://locations.dunkindonuts.com/en/ct/storrs-mansfield |website=Dunkin' Donuts Store Locator |publisher=[[Dunkin' Donuts]] |quote=12 Royce Circle Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268 - 1659 Storrs Rd Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268}}| {{cite web |title=UPS Locations in Storrs Mansfield, CT |url=https://locations.ups.com/us/en/ct/storrsmansfield/ |website=UPS Store Locator |publisher=[[The UPS Store|UPS]] |quote=632 MIDDLE TPKE STORRS MANSFIELD, CT 06268 - STORRS RD SUITE C STORRS MANSFIELD, CT 06268}}| {{cite web |title=Storrs Mansfield, Connecticut branches and ATMs - Chase Bank |url=https://locator.chase.com/ct/storrs-mansfield |website=Chase Bank Store Locator |publisher=[[Chase Bank]] |quote=8 Royce Cir Storrs Mansfield, CT, 06268}}| {{cite web |title=T-Mobile Wilbur Cross Way and Charles Smith - Storrs Mansfield, CT |url=https://www.t-mobile.com/stores/bd/t-mobile-storrs-mansfield-ct-06268-798d |website=T-Mobile Store Locator |publisher=[[T-Mobile]] |quote=34 Wilbur Cross Way Ste 103 Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268}}| {{cite web |title=FedEx at Dollar General - Storrs Mansfield, CT - 591 Middle Tpke 06268 |url=https://local.fedex.com/en-us/ct/storrs-mansfield/gonad |website=FedEx Store Locator |publisher=[[FedEx]] |quote=591 Middle Tpke Storrs Mansfield, Connecticut 06268}}| {{cite web |title=Frontier Internet Service in Storrs Mansfield, CT |url=https://go.frontier.com/availability/ct/storrs-mansfield |website=Frontier > Availability > Connecticut |publisher=[[Frontier Communications]] |quote=Learn more about Frontier Internet services available in Storrs Mansfield, CT. Call 855-552-9691 to check for availability and get started with Frontier. - Get Frontier Internet in Storrs Mansfield, Connecticut. You can count on Frontier Internet to keep you connected for all your online tasks.}}| {{cite web |title=DISH Network in Storrs Mansfield, CT |url=https://www.dish.com/availability/ct/storrs-mansfield |website=DISH Network > Availability > Connecticut |publisher=[[DISH Network]] |quote=Find the best DISH packages in Storrs Mansfield, Connecticut featuring the channels you want. - All DISH packages in Storrs Mansfield come with local channels so you can keep up with your local sports team or your favorite news channel.}}| {{cite web |title=AT&T Storrs Mansfield, CT Deals and Services - Get Connected |url=https://www.att.com/local/connecticut/storrs-mansfield |website=AT&T > Availability > Connecticut |publisher=[[AT&T]] |quote=Serving Storrs Mansfield, CT and surrounding areas - AT&T Storrs Mansfield, CT services for your home and business - Get connected with AT&T in Storrs Mansfield, CT}}| {{cite web |title=Discover Storrs Mansfield, CT |url=https://local.aarp.org/storrs-mansfield-ct/ |website=AARP Local Guide |publisher=[[AARP|AARP Connecticut]] |quote=Welcome to AARP Storrs Mansfield}}| {{cite web |title=Storrs Mansfield, CT Trash Pickup and Recycling |url=https://www.republicservices.com/locations/connecticut/storrs-mansfield-trash-pickup-and-recycling |website=Republic Services > Locations > Connecticut |publisher=Republic Services |quote=Republic Services is a leader in recycling and non-hazardous solid waste disposal. We have waste services in Storrs Mansfield and the nearby area.}}| {{cite web |title=Storrs-Mansfield, CT Copier Dealer and Managed Print Services |url=https://aaofficesystems.com/storrs-mansfield-ct-office-equipment |website=Production Print Systems |publisher=A&A Office Systems Inc. |quote=Over 60 Years of Workplace Innovation in Storrs-Mansfield, CT and other nearby areas in Connecticut - Authorized Storrs-Mansfield, CT dealer for a wide selection of cutting edge devices}}| {{cite web |title=Stone Arches Bed and Breakfast - Storrs Mansfield, CT |url=https://www.stonearchesbnb.com/ |publisher=Stone Arches Bed and Breakfast |location=Storrs-Mansfield, CT |quote=Come and stay at our 300-year-old historic stone home located only a few miles from Storrs Mansfield and the University of Connecticut (UConn) and Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic and even closer to hiking, fishing and boating at Mansfield Hollow State Park.}} | {{cite web |title=Storrs Automotive |url=https://www.yelp.com/biz/storrs-automotive-storrs-mansfield |publisher=[[Yelp]] |quote=11 Dog Ln, Storrs Mansfield, CT 06268}} }}</ref>}}
:'''It is clear Storrs-Mansfield is the <u>commonly-used name</u> to refer to this community.'''
:The only reason this thread on the Administrator's noticeboard exists is because editors, or groups of editors, prefer to drive away constructive, corrective, and truthful edits. I have seen numerous replies to the discussion by editors who say something along the lines of "The residents of Storrs refer to the town as Storrs." This disqualifies those individuals from participating or having a binding opinion on the subject because any response like that has bias. It immediately assumes a resolution, and, in support of an incorrect and unsubstantiated name. Some other editors came from wherever, most likely due to a ping somehow, and placed warnings on me. But it's patently unfair the same exact message haven't been placed on the users engaged in the discussion on this page, users involved directly with the changes/edits/reversals on the articles in question, or any future involved stakeholder. If I am getting warned for making corrective edits referencing properly the truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, '''any and all''' editors reversing the same '''must''' have the same warning notice placed on their page. By not doing so, being that they are taking just as much a side as I would be in the theoretical "edit war", you are presenting that Wikipedia has itself declared the correct stance. You cannot do that, during an open matter. You cannot favor one editor over the other, ''especially in the case of the TRUTH PREVAILING.''
:'''There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules.'''
:In the United States, there are many towns and communities with [[List of double placenames#United States|double placenames]]. By allowing any of these and not Storrs-Mansfield, which is corroborated by official and substantial references, Wikipedia contradicts itself. Anyone in this discussion who supports any reference to a singular "Storrs" '''must''' support the replacement of any and all references to valid double placenames like Storrs-Mansfield, lest they be hypocritical and not credible. Any administrator which continues to allow this contradiction, and does not allow the correct and truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, would no longer be considered responsible in their ability to uphold the facts over an opinion.
:I have posed the question to the other participants of the discussion: What if the town in which ''you'' lived was capriciously referred to as something else? "Banana, USA" may just be where you are reading this. And if enough people start using that in turn of phrase, then all of these users would be obligated to adjust each reference to your town to "Banana, USA". That is wrong and of course would never happen. What if people just start creating false claims and perpetuating them? This happens all of the time, and it's obvious that this discussion is not rooted in vandalism or malfeasance. '''It is and was inappropriate''' to single me out for trying to improve Wikipedia by making corrective edits in reference to this place name - by attempting to block and reverse my edits, which also contained substantial constructive changes, by attempting to place numerous and many warnings on me claiming that I am being disruptive "when things weren't going your way", and by not treating '''ANY''' of the other editors in the discussion the same way as I have been.
:I am making every effort to improve Wikipedia, being an online encyclopedic reference of distinction. It is clear there are many policies in place ''designed'' to maintain accuracy and truth. '''Why then, are we even considering a discussion of an untruthful place name?'''
:Stop attacking me and stop perpetuating falsehoods. Anyone who attempts to reverse my truthful and corrective edits should have the disruptive editing process initiated unto them. If that doesn't happen, that's not fair and means '''any''' shred of credibility Wikipedia currently lays claim to would be extinguished, by allowing such a claim to prevail.
:'''Storrs-Mansfield is the correct name. Do not suggest otherwise.'''
:{{Reflist-talk}}
{{hab}}
[[Special:Contributions/98.191.14.194|98.191.14.194]] ([[User talk:98.191.14.194|talk]]) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
 
::Asserting you're right isn't a justification for edit-warring. A look at [[WP:ICOMMONNAME]] agreewould be a good idea too, along with FutPerf[[WP:NPA]]. '''<span style="font-family: verdanaArial;"> — [[User:RlevseAcroterion|<span style="color:#060 black;">'''''R''levse'''Acroterion</span>]] • <small>[[User_talkUser talk:RlevseAcroterion|<span style="color:#990 gray;">Talk(talk)</span>]] • </small></span>''' 0901:2941, 2521 JulySeptember 20082024 (UTC)
:::Saying "assuming you're right" misses the point that the corrective edit was substantiated by droves of verifiable and official references, correctly cited in the edit and re-exemplified here. It is one thing to make an edit, but it is another to provide a number of correct references to support it.
:::There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules. Any user who reverts a corrective edit, maintaining the truth, is the one who should be perjured - not myself.
:::<br>
:::Why haven't you or anyone else involved with this discussion placed equivalent messages or notices on the pages of ''any'' other user involved in the discussion? That is patently unfair. [[Special:Contributions/98.191.14.194|98.191.14.194]] ([[User talk:98.191.14.194|talk]]) 01:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It's "asserting you're right." You may not edit-war, nor may you use Wikipedia as a battleground. You are expected to follow the policy-compliant advice of other editors, which you are not doing, and which is why you're here. Dial it back; you aren't entitled to be sole arbitrator of content or style. Neither Wikipedia notr this noticeboard are courts of law. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 01:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::You nor any other editor do not have any right to censor any part of my reply. And, for the record, "why I'm here" is because other editors do not know how to identify correct and verified references, properly added to support a corrective change in an article. Other editors do not know when to use the official and, obviously community-supported, name of a local community.
:::::Since asking the name of the town in which you live would be considered personal, let's use the US President. If someone said he lived in "Hydrogen, VA" what would be your response? We all know that's not true. But if enough liars say it, your position is that Wikipedia would list it.
:::::Like I've said, this isn't an edit war. It isn't even a conflict - it's an example of editors '''not allowing the truth to prevail.''' Do not censor my replies. [[Special:Contributions/98.191.14.194|98.191.14.194]] ([[User talk:98.191.14.194|talk]]) 02:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Actually, I (and any other editor in good standing) do have the right to collapse long digressions into a content dispute. ANI is for user conduct issues, not content arguments, and you appear to be importing the conduct issues that concern other editors to this noticeboard. Last chance. You will be blocked if you unhat your diversion again. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 02:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Fine, keep your hat on - it's not even your color. '''My reply was NOT a digression. It is and was relevant to the the discussion at hand.''' But you're saying that it is a content-based discussion, so ''where is the right forum?'' Reminder: Another editor started the topic here. That's not on me.
:::::::Secondly, my conduct is acceptable because I am upholding Wikipedia's values of accurate information, use of verified and reliable sources, and correct editing technique (including actually citing sources when I make an edit). You nor any other editor can argue that any of the edits I have made on this matter have been anything but complete, technically sound, and appropriate edits.
:::::::It is '''not''' considered forum shopping if I was not the one who initiated the topic here, and, in such a case have to use the content-based forum. It is doubly not appropriate to silence my replies if this isn't even the right place - which should have been made clear in an upfront fashion. You have zero right to opine on the '''facts''' presented and call them a digression, diversion, or off-topic in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/98.191.14.194|98.191.14.194]] ([[User talk:98.191.14.194|talk]]) 02:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The article talkpage is the place to ''politely and respectfully'' discuss and resolve content. You will have to change your attitude toward other editors. You will be expected to present suggestions that comply with the manual of style, which is why people keep telling you about COMMONNAME. Total conviction that you're right, everybody else is wrong, and that they are to be treated as opponents to be subdued through walls of text and denigration is one way to lose editing privileges. And that's why your conduct is being discussed at this conduct noticeboard. Don't exhaust our patience. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And since you've placed two tit-for-tat warnings on my talkapge and exhibited no inclination to actually listen, you're blocked for 48 hours. Any recurrence of the battleground behavior on display here will earn a much longer block. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The completely-missing-the-point wall of text unblock demand doesn’t leave much room for optimism. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 03:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Weighing in here, since a colleague here at UConn told me about the discussion. It's obvious this IP user (using an IP registered to UConn) is new to editing on Wikipedia and wasn't immediately knowledgable on certain policies. I do not doubt the spirit of any warning or advice given to him here or on the user talk page, but he has a point - reference-supported edits aren't inherently destructive. Respect that this user did not make further reversals once the discussion had started.
 
All the same, an official determination hasn't been made so just throwing him in the cooler isn't appropriate. Many of the responses here do have preconceived notions that "Storrs" is correct and the end-all-be-all, and the user pointing that out does not mean the IP editor considers you an enemy.
::::BTW, an earlier discussion of this editor, where she narrowly escaped an indef block for tendentious editing plus sockpuppetry, is at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs)]]. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 10:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I've been looking this over and I have to say, going on his/her comments in relation to you FutPerf, I don't really see very much in the way of ''grave insinuations against my honor and integrity as a person and an editor''. To me it looks more like a general conversation about content, and one in which they themselves '''appears''' to ''have an axe to grind as well as a personal issue with''. I'm still reviewing the other diffs before yours, but I felt compelled to point this out now. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
I was the user last year who requested the page name change. I did that because I searched out that policy, and notice how I didn't even change the body text at that point, and haven't done so yet again.
 
But, saying that the request achieved consensus may be flawed - No participant provided any supporting evidence or reference, and one basically said "I don't care for the source you've suggested" and then cited WP:COMMONNAME, without providing any examples. I do not disagree with WP:COMMONNAME - but, as evidenced in the IP user's argument, there is a substantial amount of sources which differ from the supposed consensus, not to mention "Storrs-Mansfield" continues to be commonly used.
:::::'''I appreciate this Korean-Japanese issue being brought to a wider and more qualified audience. I initially chose the "non-combative" mediation route as that was what policy decreed.'''
 
I've gone ahead and moved this discussion to the article talk page. Any of the editors here could have done that, so saying "Why aren't you using the article talk page" when the IP editor is simply replying to your response is unproductive. I'd recommend further discussion to occur there, and to let any prior bygones be bygones. [[User:Jonathanhusky|Jonathanhusky]] ([[User talk:Jonathanhusky|talk]]) 04:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::If other admins are willing to accept the bigger issue here, or accept that it goes straight to some other avenue of resolution, then I am glad to take the mediation there.''' Please advise.
:A few points in regards to their (no idea how the IP identifies) behavior. Yes, the stopped reversion after the warning, but their reaction after the warning including tit for tat warnings on {{U|Acroterion}} 's pages. In addition (assuming both IPs discussed here are the same) they deleted the discussion that you started on the name change. That speaks to complete disregard for anyone on Wikipedia's opinions. The IP got a 48 hour bounce. When they come back you would like to mentor them, go ahead. I'm guessing the behavior won't change.
 
:I'll go ahead and post the google compare on storrs vs. storrs-mansfield on the talk page for the village.[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 15:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I also wholly expected such a response and documented the nature of the Caspian blue's MO in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25_Comfort_women my mediation request] ... '''revert, provoke, complain, report'''.
 
::The block concerned their contemptuous behavior toward other editors and their treatment of the topic as a cage match fight to the death, accompanied by walls of text on this noticeboard and a disregard for any voice but their own. However a reasonable discussion (as modeled by Jonathanhusky and Naraht) turns out, it's fine with me. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 19:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I also flag up the bogus Open Proxy report [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] filed at;
 
*Semi'ed since we have other colleagues who are now aware of the discussion. Should it need to be longer, feel free to amend. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_on_open_proxies&diff=227789030&oldid=227674672 07:33, 25 July 2008]
 
== Xenophobic comment ==
::::: in order to find more information about me as a distraction from the main issue ... and the mediation.
 
User [[User:MikeAllen|MikeAllen]] reverted two of my edits on pages of ''[[The Northman]]'' and ''[[The Lighthouse (2019 film)|The Lighthouse]]'' with the comment "Nothing ever good comes from a Brazil IP addreess on film pages", which is xenophobic. Not the first time he acts in a similar "jokey" way on a page I previously edited, like he was the owner of the page and only his opinion is the one that matter, even cursing, but this comment, for me, crossed a line. He is not better or smarter than me because of the country he comes from. I would expect that this person is blocked from using Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF|2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF]] ([[User talk:2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF|talk]]) 00:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::* No, I am not Japanese nor do I speak or read it but, yes, I am editing from Japan's largest internet provider (NTT).
:Although it was said in a joking manner, that's a bad attitude and edit summary to have towards other editors. I wonder if they are referencing a previous LTA they have encountered from this area. They will have to explain if there is any context here. The edits are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lighthouse_(2019_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1246604223 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Northman&diff=prev&oldid=1246604143 here]. Many editors, even experienced ones, can be unnecessarily dismissive towards our IP editors. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::* No, I have not said what they say off me.
::Honestly, there is no "context" for this kind of attitude, and tough I call it "jokey", it's definitely not a joke. Again, this is not the first time that he acted in a disrespectful way. [[Special:Contributions/2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF|2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF]] ([[User talk:2804:7F0:90B2:1E95:B537:E3F:9F4:A9CF|talk]]) 01:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::* What I have learnt of 2ch and any previous disputes comes from following the user who seemingly edits as {{User|Caspian blue}}, {{User|Appletrees}} and who knows what else.
:Well, [[Special:Contribs/2804:7F0:9000::/40|2804:7F0:9000::/40]] is now blocked for 6 months by NinjaRobotPirate as a checkuser block. Is this an LTA, @[[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]]? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B0:A801:A199:4599:27B:F488|2804:F1...7B:F488]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80B0:A801:A199:4599:27B:F488|talk]]) 02:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::Of course blocked. Nothing to see here. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">'''[[User:MikeAllen|<span style="color: #606c38">Mike</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:MikeAllen|<span style="color:#606c38">Allen</span>]]'''</span> 03:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Uh, let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Mike. No one is going to object to the CU block, but Liz isn't the only one who is hoping you can provide some insight for your comment, because irrespective of whether you were talking to a troll or an outright LTA, it's hard to imagine a context where such broad and obviously nationality-based commentary isn't a problem. Even if we AGF our very hardest that there is a history with particular editors that is animating that comment, the generalization in what you actually said implies a pretty substantial and problematic bias. At a minimum, I think it's reasonable to hear an acknowledgement of that from you and a commitment not to make such broad generalizations, whatever your particular experience. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 04:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Um, any chance of a sensible response? Assuming good faith while admiring a six-month block of a /40 ([[Special:Contributions/2804:7F0:9000:0:0:0:0:0/40]]), it is obvious that a lot of abuse from IPs in a certain region has occurred. A sensible response would be to point out that the edit summary would be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with the situation and should not be used. A better edit summary would be "rv LTA". [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::To be clear, that is exactly my concern as well, and I couldn't agree more with the proposed alternative approach to the edit summary in such situations. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::My statement in the edit summary was based on the experience of Brazil based IP addresses that make very similar disruptive edits. This happens daily on film articles. I’m not entirely sure that all of these users ''are'' located in Brazil. Which is why I said “a Brazil IP address” and not people of Brazil. It’s not that hard to mask your IP. You’re all right that I shouldn’t have even mentioned a country in that way and won’t for now on. My apologies. <span style="solid;background:#a3b18a; border-radius: 4px; -moz-border-radius: 4px; font-family: Papyrus">'''[[User:MikeAllen|<span style="color: #606c38">Mike</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:MikeAllen|<span style="color:#606c38">Allen</span>]]'''</span> 09:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{thumbs up}} Thank you for receiving the concerns in the spirit they were intended. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 11:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Repeated accusations of bad faith in attempt to discredit, which is disrupting ability to work constructively ==
:::::* '''I sincerely believe I am touching on issue that needs to be addressed at a higher level. The precision of my analysis of Caspian blue's MO is the cause of such a strong reaction.'''
 
:::::I do not know the history is but there are a group of editors of whom {{User|Caspian blue}} is the most dedicated, with good cultural grounds to have a grudge against WWII Japan, who are repeatedly provoking other contributors, blocking ANY changes or improvement to related Korean-Japanese topics, distracting and wasting the time of both other contributors and admins.
 
:::::My feeling is that they are mainly young Korean-Americans as my experience with education Koreans is that they are more balanced and sensitive about the issues. It appears '''Caspian blue''' is also supported by others with similar interests, e.g {{User|Blueshirts}} and {{User|Amble}} whom he can depend on to make identical revisions. Most or all of the recent Korean academics in this field drawn attention to cultural gender issues in their analysis and I think this is what we are also facing here.
 
There has been a Talk page "war" that has gone well off the rails at this point involving my overly-verbose self (sorry) and the original article writer for multiple articles. I self-declared a COI and attempted good faith extensively, but the views of the other editor @Desertarun have only become more unprofessional. If nothing more, their conduct is making it difficult for me to engage with other editors who have been helpful in the conversation (thank you to @ProfGray in particular). @Desertarun has been libelous repeatedly, accusing me of [[WP:CANVASSING]] when I did not, of editing in bad faith when I have not, and has constantly referenced WP rules in error in an attempt to discredit the source, and myself for using them (incorrectly citing [[WP:SPS]], [[WP:PRIMARY]]), and constantly brings up my self-declared [[WP:COI]] as if it is disqualifying at every level. In one instance, they opened a formal Requested Move in my name (even though I had not formally endorsed the requested move they proposed in my name).
:::::I am not a denier, imperialist and have nothing personal going on with '''Caspian blue''' except that I think their MO is unethical and bad for the wikipedia. He, and the others, are deliberately ensuring that both new and informed professional contributors the wikipedia are discouraged from attempting to develop "their" propagandistic topics because of the futility of attempting to do so.
 
A major concern behind this, I am increasingly confident that user @Desertarun has their own undeclared COI, or at least a problematic bias deserving attention. One of the reasons for this dispute devolving was they wrote multiple articles in ~2020 with the unusual disambiguator (DAB) of "(slave trader)", which is almost entirely unique to their articles. Their articles covered historical figures of some note for multiple "significant views", but wrote only on their slave trading aspects. There has been no dispute of their notoriety as slave traders, nor even that this is an inaccurate DAB, but it certainly isn't one aligned with [[WP:CONSISTENCY]] as almost all similar biographical articles use DABs like "(merchant)" or "(lord mayor)".
:::::If I have a fault, it is that I am attempting to do something too sophisticated here ... and I do not bow to such tactics. Of course, this causes its own problems. My previous editing history has been on cultic religions, e.g. [[BKWSU]] where I experience almost an identical MO until the organization in question withdrew and the article settled down to a normal level of minor changes. I find that often admins are too willing to react to the given stimulus (e.g. stop the noise) rather than looking deeper at what is really going on.
 
However, <u>and this is why this really feels like it needs the incidents board</u>, I have to be blunt and forego politeness: user @Desertarun is not a careful reader, and has included many inaccuracies in their articles systemically. More problematically, at the time I discovered their articles, it included invented phrasing like "Baker and Dawson slave trading company" when the source they cited referred to them as "Baker and Dawson shipbuilding company." Uncareful reading has led to many confusions in their articles, some minor, but also some major, and these I have detailed extensively on [[Talk:Peter_Baker_(slave_trader)]]. What is even more disconcerting is that this user is writing on figures of genuine historical importance, ''and there is a serious concern that their content has spurred '''[[citogenesis]]/circular reporting issues''' not just on Wikipedia, but in secondary sources that they have then used to reinforce their own biases.'' For instance, see: [[Talk:John_Dawson_(slave_trader)#Requested_move_20_September_2024]]. @Desertarun not only arbitrarily accuses me of bad faith, of the source material being both primary and unreliable (it is neither), but... they are literally fighting against a mistake they (and possibly others) clearly made where they simply confused two related ''J. Dawsons''. Newly-digitized source material written by the grandson of John Dawson (b 1799), and great great grandson of James Dawson (b 1752), makes abundantly clear that John Dawson wasn't even alive at the time of James Dawson's slave trading peak in the 1780s. And yet the article [[John Dawson (slave trader)]] is written overtly covering James Dawson's exploits. Rather than recognize this error, @Desertarun has attacked me, and the source (HS Phillips 1953), the long-deceased flippin' grandson of John Dawson, of not knowing the correct names of his own family. This incident pushes past a red line for me, where it is clear that @Desertarun is not interested in reasoned debate, but simply seeks to block every correction I attempt to these articles, which are riddled with errors and [[WP:WEIGHT]] issues. Arbitration and some sort of more-than-volunteer involvement in the Talk of [[Peter Baker (slave trader)]] and [[John Dawson (slave trader)]] feels warranted at this stage.
:::::* I would like to flag up an additional bad faith deletion of the page on [[Korean war crimes]] by [[User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise|Future Perfect at Sunrise]] at [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Korean_war_crimes ]] at 07:44, 25 July 2008 following my request to involve them in the mediation.
 
I have a self-declared COI to these individuals, which I stated up front, and outlined explicitly here[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Baker_(slave_trader)#c-Crawdaunt-20240916070900-ProfGray-20240916040400]. But these repeated attacks on my character and wilfull ignorance of Wikipedia policy and codes of conduct are making it very difficult to have reasoned conversation about this controversial topic. I really can't just keep responding to every libelous attack on my character to ensure my original query is not discounted due to accusations of bad faith. This is making the Talk pages unnecessarily long and confusing to follow.
:::::"Plagiarism" is a new word that Future Perfect has taught the boys but I do think other uninvolved admins would find the same fault nor enact the same censorship. I consider this quite a deliberate provocation. If someone would take a look at it and make a decision, I would appreciate it. --[[User:Lucyintheskywithdada|Lucyintheskywithdada]] ([[User talk:Lucyintheskywithdada|talk]]) 12:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::You accused first that I'm of Anti-Japanese hate race so that I automatically become Korean or Korean-American per your theory. I have never said that you're a Japanese, never. That's why I filed [[WP:OP]] to see if you're using it to look like a Japanese. Given your time arrange, I guessed you're Australian. It is true that you use a Japanese ISP (Not NTT, but NTT Plala) and your false accusations and attempts remind me of Documentingabuse. Nobody said that you're denier or imperialist, however your racist attacks are harming Wikipedia. Also the description on yourself is the blocked sockpuppeter. You were saved by the last incident on Feb, and your disruption keeps going on. --15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Thank you for stepping in and helping to resolve this issue.
:'''Note''':For the record, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=prev&oldid=227827627 she] has apologized as Future wished, but was removed. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::That's barely an apology at all. It's self-contradictory: she says "sorry", and then continues the attacks in the very next phrase. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 15:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Thats not even directed at anyone. If you feel a block is merited for this specifically Moreschi, then I don't see what anyone is waiting for. Don't let me stop you. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Best -- [[User:Crawdaunt|Crawdaunt]] ([[User talk:Crawdaunt|talk]]) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:My involvement has been only to document and remove plagiarised material. Lucy has repeatedly personalized this issue, accusing anyone who believes there's a problem with the text in question of censorship, nationalist agendas, indifference to the suffering of abused women, personal/psychological problems that need to be worked out, and so on. I do find this abusive. --[[User:Amble|Amble]] ([[User talk:Amble|talk]]) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Noting that I have removed a transclusion of the non-free image [[:File:Citogenesis.png]] from this report, since it has no non-free use rationale for ANI and isn't a subject of (or otherwise discussed in) this report, meaning having it has little effect over a link to [[citogenesis]] or [[WP:citogenesis]] and thus fails [[WP:NFCC#9]]. [[User:Victor Schmidt|Victor Schmidt]] ([[User talk:Victor Schmidt|talk]]) 06:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::At its essence this dispute centres around this users desire to remove the disambiguator (slave trader) from the name of his ancestor [[Peter Baker (slave trader)]]. This user has a declared [[WP:COI]], but doesn't understand the limitations this brings to his edits. Another of his relatives is [[John_Dawson (slave_trader)]]. He recently did a request move for John Dawson to James Dawson. That article has 14 references that call this person John Dawson and he's wanting this move based upon just one self published source - by another of his relatives. I believe this ANI was made because in that page move request I said i believe it was a "Bad faith" nomination, I've now struck those words from my oppose move vote. [[User:Desertarun|Desertarun]] ([[User talk:Desertarun|talk]]) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::In addition the work he's using to edit the [[Peter Baker (slave trader)]] article i believe to be both Primary, unpublished, unreliable and a [[WP:COPYVIO]]. It was written by one of his relative in 1953 and is held in a museum collection. This user uploaded the file himself and I believe it needs looking at to determine the exact problem. It is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Item_SAS-25A-1-9_-_3_Generations_of_Old_Liverpool_Shipbuilders.pdf [[User:Desertarun|Desertarun]] ([[User talk:Desertarun|talk]]) 08:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I just fixed an error on the article relating to this source, and looked into it as I did. It's an unpublished pamphlet handwritten by one of the subjects ancestors and it's unclear what it's based on. It might be helpful if other editors give their thoughts on if it's a reliable source. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::'''Genuine question on "unpublished":''' this document is part of the ''National Museums Liverpool permanent collection, accession SAS/25A/1/9.'' @[[User:ProfGray|ProfGray]] wrote this citation out. What I did was digitize it and upload it to Wikimedia commons, such that it could be read and scrutinized. Is a museum archive item an "unpublished" document? See: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/papers-re-baker-and-dawson-family-shipbuilders-liverpool
:::::'''My TLDR:''' Desertarun has written numerous articles that contain inaccuracies. In a most extreme case, they wrote one titled after the wrong [[John Dawson (slave trader)|J. Dawson]]. Document SAS/25A/1/9 is a clear-as-day proof of this, as John Dawson wasn't the son-in law of Peter Baker, James Dawson was. I think we can trust John Dawson's grandson, author of the museum archive document, to report that accurately. This has become a possible citogenesis/circular reporting incident. ''Best --'' [[User:Crawdaunt|Crawdaunt]] ([[User talk:Crawdaunt|talk]]) 13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::The article was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dawson_(slave_trader)&oldid=995154026 created] in December 2020; the cited references seem to have been published earlier than this. [[User:Brunton|Brunton]] ([[User talk:Brunton|talk]]) 14:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Document SAS/25A/1/9 isn't proof of anything. Its the disputed source - it is handwritten in an exercise book! Its a primary source and no doubt riddled with inaccuracies. [[User:Desertarun|Desertarun]] ([[User talk:Desertarun|talk]]) 14:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I have further sorted out (I believe) part of the John Dawson - James Dawson confusions and posted these to both the Peter Baker and John Dawson pages. '''TLDR:''' there was a John Dawson slave trader that went bankrupt in 1793 and died in 1812 (Pope 2007). But this isn't the Dawson from Baker and Dawson. James Dawson (of Baker and Dawson) remained in charge of the company until his death in 1824 (Phillips 1953). It's a simple correction to disambiguate these two J. Dawsons made possible by this Baker-Dawson family lineage document (Phillips 1953). Best -- [[User:Crawdaunt|Crawdaunt]] ([[User talk:Crawdaunt|talk]]) 16:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::'''For the benefit of observers and posterity for linked relevant discussion to this incident,''' see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Dawson_(slave_trader)#c-Crawdaunt-20240921161700-Brunton-20240921152100], which addresses these questions confirming this is a published source per [[WP:RS]], and is indeed [[WP:SECONDARY]]. Best -- [[User:Crawdaunt|Crawdaunt]] ([[User talk:Crawdaunt|talk]]) 16:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::My point was more that this something someone wrote, it's an interesting historical object but that it exists and is accessible doesn't make it a reliable source. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Placing an object in a museum isn't 'publication' by any reasonable definition, but regardless of that, the document in question simply does not meet Wikipedia requirements as a reliable source: [[WP:RS]] requires that sources be {{tq| reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. It cannot be cited. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think the RS standard is used for sources that are used to establish notability. I don't think that primary sources are forbidden from articles. They just have to be used carefully and judiciously. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The question here is not to do with the source on its own, it's that the source in question is contradicted by published independent RS. [[User:Brunton|Brunton]] ([[User talk:Brunton|talk]]) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Writing down your "family records and traditions" doesn't make it reliable, if it did you could just setup a website containing the same information. If a historian was investigating the subject they might find the pamphlet an interesting historical object, but [[WP:SPS|self published sources]] should have some standards. Maybe it could be used as a primary source using intext attribution, but then it would be a matter of due if the writings of the subject great great grandson should be included. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::'''AN/I recommendations''': My sense is that @[[User:Desertarun|Desertarun]] has been mostly civil, not disruptive, though I disagree with: charging "bad faith" (even w link to humor page), certain policy assertions (e.g., primary), and the unusual technique of creating an [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|WP:RM]] that they actually oppose, perhaps to make a [[WP:Point]]. If admins agree with these concerns, I suppose that can be communicated to the editor, no need for further sanction IMO.
::::::::::::AN/I is for conduct, not content disagreements, right? I've already discussed the reliability problems with the 1953 family history manuscript (i.e., unreliable for most purposes), and the proposed name changes, on the relevant Talk pages. If need be, these content diagreements could be resolved with e 3PO or RfC.
::::::::::::If the above is roughly on target, then @[[User:Crawdaunt|Crawdaunt]] could be advised on how to best pursue their content concerns outside of ANI and to not restate same issues in multiple locations. [[User:ProfGray|ProfGray]] ([[User talk:ProfGray|talk]]) 14:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::'''Thanks for considered responses all. To be absolutely clear, we are talking about this document:''' [https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/artifact/papers-re-baker-and-dawson-family-shipbuilders-liverpool| Papers re Baker and Dawson family, shipbuilders, Liverpool. SAS/25A/1/9. National Museums Liverpool.]
:::::::::::::It <u>is published</u> by [[National Museums Liverpool]] per definition of published in [[WP:RS]]. National Museums Liverpool is an independent body that took this information and <u>independently judged it</u> to be of merit for storage in its permanent collection. Is this scientific peer review? No. ''But that standard is not held for most historical documents from an era before modern peer review.''
:::::::::::::'''WIth that said:''' @[[User:Liz|Liz]] yes absolutely. Regardless, <u>this is not a primary source.</u> The author was born 150 years after the subject matter died. <u>The author has a COI.</u> This an incredibly important distinction per [[WP:RS]], particularly for historical documents which are often written by individuals with COIs related to the subject matter (but without whom, we would not know the history).
:::::::::::::'''FINALLY:''' this incident report is about the libel I am facing from @Desertarun. If we must focus it to a specific event, I will cite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Dawson_(slave_trader)#c-Desertarun-20240921004600-Crawdaunt-20240921000500]. To give further context to this: on [[Peter Baker (slave trader)]], @Desertarun <u>actually invited</u> me to contribute to the page using Phillips (1953) as my source ('''[[Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader)#c-Desertarun-20240914084800-Crawdaunt-20240914083600|link]]'''). When I wrote in this information, suddenly, he attacks me and the source in an effort to discredit both under spurious definitions. I am disappointed these continue to be raised here, and ask editors to consider if their perception is coloured by @Desertarun's original framing, or if it is arrived at fully independently - ''It can absolutely be the latter, but request a moment of reflection here.''
:::::::::::::'''Regarding the discussion on these controversial pages:''' I would please request a more civil policed discussion that considers the points being raised for their legitimacy, and not solely for who said them. I am dredging up some longstanding historical confusions, inaccuracies, and more by going down this rabbit hole. For instance, see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Baker_(slave_trader)#c-Crawdaunt-20240922142000-ProfGray-20240922022600], which contains a further account of how this name confusion may have arisen, given the original source of Williams (1897) self-acknowledges their own source had the name wrong, and it was Williams (1897) who did the correction to "John Dawson". I now believe this is the root of the [[citogenesis]] issue plaguing this and other documents, and now also Wiki pages. Best -- [[User:Crawdaunt|Crawdaunt]] ([[User talk:Crawdaunt|talk]]) 15:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I skimmed the early part of this thread earlier but frankly barely remember it so I have no real idea who you are. I think you're someone's descendant but I don't particularly care. The problem seems to be that you lack any good sources to challenge the existing ones. The one you keep promoting is highly questionable for Wikipedia purposes. It might very well be correct but that's not for us to decide. This seems to be a classic case of [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. You need to convince someone else to do a write up based on your findings and get it published somewhere suitable to correct the historical record rather than trying to start with us. Failing that you could do a write up yourself and try to get someone reliable to publish it. Again I'm really unsure of who you are and I'm fairly sure if say the same to a professional historian completely uninvolved or unconnected to any of this previously. (Well I'd suggest they write it up and get it published aa the first suggestion .) Note that the evidence presented here suggests that even if we did contribute to the alleged problem, we're definitely not the ones who started it so it's not like this is a problem we created. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 00:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I agree. Although at this point all references are additionally supported after requests to support further (recent edit requested by ProfGray). I agree and have recused myself from these pages any further unless requested for comment.
:::::::::::::::I agree there is also [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]] concerns both for my own edits, but also for the original conceptions of these pages. Desertarun wrote over a dozen articles in 2020 on historic figures with the unusual DAB (slave trader), which comes almost exclusively from Desertarun and isn't standard for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:18th-century_English_slave_traders| slave traders] of this time, except those articles written by Desertarun. They then nominated many for WP "did you know." So if you invent a DAB, then pump it to the front page, and also invite edits by a fellow Wiki editor based on a newly-digitized source, but then reject them and start using libel and making false claims about the content, I believe there is a conduct issue and also a systematic attempt to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]].
:::::::::::::::On the [[WP:RS]] concern, @[[User:ProfGray|ProfGray]] has worked very constructively to adopt the information from this source where it is appropriate, and raise concern where it is not.
:::::::::::::::This is my last comment here. I do believe it is right to have raised this incident, and accept if the judgement is that I have been at fault in no small part. I hope the logging of this incident might be useful in the future if further concerns about Desertarun-written "(slave trader)" DAB articles arise. Best -- [[User:Crawdaunt|Crawdaunt]] ([[User talk:Crawdaunt|talk]]) 00:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Whitewashing "abysmal" "inept" movie ==
::Well put. And yes, saying "I apologize for the amateur psychology" is not an apology for having suggested that several fellow editors are secretly sexual perverts with an obsession about forced prostitution. Doesn't even come close. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone using two different ips 2A04:4A43:423F:D906:C022:CBE8:FFFB:8910 and 188.30.169.186 is repeating vandalising [[Watermark (2013 film)]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watermark_(2003_film)&action=history], removing sourced content because they want to pretend the movie did not get bad reviews. Wikipedia is not a venue for whitewashing the past. [[User:Duffbeerforme|duffbeerforme]] ([[User talk:Duffbeerforme|talk]]) 06:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
* I was very confused there until I clicked the diff and saw it was [[Watermark (2003 film)]]! Restored stable version and semi-protected. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 07:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:* Whoops, sorry. For those watching [[Watermark (2003 film)]]. Thanks Black Kite. [[User:Duffbeerforme|duffbeerforme]] ([[User talk:Duffbeerforme|talk]]) 09:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Revolutionary Communist International, NOTHERE by likely COI accounts ==
:Amble: Agreed. Although I'd like to point out the my initial and only objection is to blocking over FuturesPerfect's ''honor and integrity as a person and an editor''. Other than that, she has clearly been disruptive. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fine, blocked her indefinitely. CU came back confirmed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse]], so that's in addition to all the other disruption documented in this thread she's also been a naughty girl with alternate accounts recently. That's a no-no, so good-bye Lucy. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Nice job. I'm glad to see this could be resolved in a positive manner. '''[[User:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn</font>]]'''[[User_talk:Synergy|<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy</font>]] 06:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Pretty open and shut case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. New accounts with no editing outside of this one minor Trotskyist group, taking umbridge at the covering of sexual harassment claims against the group and demanding it be removed. Wouldn't be surprised if it was the same person operating both accounts.<br>
== I need help. ==
Relevant diffs:<br>
{{user|Flintinsects}}, just claiming covering the claims is "vandalism" and citing the party's website as proof they're fake claims.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Communist_International&diff=prev&oldid=1245548569][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Communist_International&diff=prev&oldid=1245557909]<br>
{{user|TrotskyChilde}}, repeatedly claiming the group's response hasn't been detailed (despite it clearly being present in the next sentence) as cover for removing details of harassment claims, adding promotional-style content about the group's "explosive growth", and using edit summaries to rubbish the source of the claims[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Communist_International&diff=prev&oldid=1246531265][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Communist_International&diff=prev&oldid=1246683747]<br>
 
Pretty obvious case for a block on both accounts [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 07:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how to report user [[User_talk:SesquipedalianVerbiage]] for vandalism. He is deleting sourced statements at [[Solar Cycle]] without explanation[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_cycle&diff=prev&oldid=227802535], and is deleting warnings from his talk page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASesquipedalianVerbiage&diff=227803120&oldid=227803078]. [[User:Lakinekaki|Lakinekaki]] ([[User talk:Lakinekaki|talk]]) 10:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:First, editors are welcome to remove warnings from their talk pages. Doing so is an indication that they have been read. Second, you are engaged in a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. Third, in his edit summaries, SV has repeatedly directed you to [[Talk:Solar cycle]] where another editor has tried to open a discussion there regarding the disputed text. Please go there and discuss it to resolve this content dispute. --[[User:Steven J. Anderson|Steven J. Anderson]] ([[User talk:Steven J. Anderson|talk]]) 10:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* Mmm. You have here an article on an international organisation, of which over nearly 20% text is about an incident that happened in one location, and were only ''allegations'' (nothing ever appears to have been proved). Not only that, but of the two sources used in the section, the second one actually ''disagrees'' with the first one about the nature and poosible veracity of the allegations. I'm unconvinced that this is [[WP:DUE]]. Obviously the blatantly promotional stuff needs to go, and yes there is obviously COI here, but I'm unsure about whether that section needs to exist. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 08:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::I added different text, and much better sourced. [[User:Lakinekaki|Lakinekaki]] ([[User talk:Lakinekaki|talk]]) 10:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] there's definitely a discussion to be had about the article's content on various issues (I know I've banged my head against the AfD wall a couple of times on it), but that's not why it's at ANI. Instead it's the '''conduct''' of the two accounts above, and namely the way they've gone about it by just removing it as vandalism (when it's clearly reliable sourced) or wanting to downplay the allegations themselves but put emphasis on how they must be fake without any evidence to demonstrate that. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 08:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The point is that if the editors who disagree with you are attempting to engage you in discussion on the talk page and you're not responding, you're in the wrong until you go there and make an effort. If that fails, your next step is [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], not this noticeboard. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.)--[[User:Steven J. Anderson|Steven J. Anderson]] ([[User talk:Steven J. Anderson|talk]]) 10:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::* Yes, as I said I agree with that, but I am about to go AFK until Sunday so I'll let others chime in here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 08:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:This has long been a significant issue on Wikipedia. I read those articles before and also noticed the unjustified edit reversals in contravention of relevant guidelines. It comes off as sock-puppets engaging in self-promotion in the form of censoring unfavourable coverage. It’d be interesting to look into whether the actions are elaborately coordinated, e.g. botnet. The IP addresses of those accounts must be checked for sure. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 12:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:*Blocked both indefinitely. ECP the article as there's been other nonsense.
:[[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 14:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== User:2403:5803:A051:0:C128:AA5:49AF:7946 edit warring and making personal attacks after been blocked ==
::::So, you're admitting that rather than talk, you'd prefer to keep trying to shove in an edit other editors have asked for discussion on? That's an admission of edit warring.
{{atop
::::I request a block for [[User:Lakinekaki|Lakinekaki]], who admits above to edit warring. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 14:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
| result = TPA already revoked by {{ping|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}}. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 14:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
 
Can an admin please revoke this IP user's [[User talk:2403:5803:A051:0:C128:AA5:49AF:7946|talk page]]? They keep edit warring after they were blocked. They were originally blocked after attacking a blocked IP user. '''[[User:PEPSI697|<span style="color:#00BFFF">PEPSI</span><span style="color:#0000FF">697</span>]]''' ([[User talk:PEPSI697|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/PEPSI697|📝]]) 10:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think it's warranted... yet. Contribs are concerning but not indicative of an all-out edit war yet; the article's talk page is being used and dicussion may go forward. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Just to note that this is becoming very severe and had to revert the edit warring and personal attack over 50 times, this is getting extremely out of control. This is really urgent. Can an admin please revoke this IP's talk page asap? '''[[User:PEPSI697|<span style="color:#00BFFF">PEPSI</span><span style="color:#0000FF">697</span>]]''' ([[User talk:PEPSI697|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/PEPSI697|📝]]) 10:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
== [[User:Eplgleplcl]] and [[User:Vria]] reported by [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) ==
::I have an offer as well. Whoever solves or revoke this IP's talk page will be awarded and will receive an anti-vandalism barnstar from me. '''[[User:PEPSI697|<span style="color:#00BFFF">PEPSI</span><span style="color:#0000FF">697</span>]]''' ([[User talk:PEPSI697|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/PEPSI697|📝]]) 11:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::I concur. I came across that IP user’s vicious comments on other users’ “Talk” pages as well. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 12:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
==NOTHERE editor==
<small>Moved from [[WP:AIV]]. ➨ '''[[User talk:Redvers|ЯEDVEЯS]]''' has wasted eight of nine lives 11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)</small>
;Single purpose accounts [[Special:Contributions/Eplgleplcl|Eplgleplcl]] and [[Special:Contributions/Vria|Vria]] have been persisting in disrupting the article and associated talk page in concert, with flagrant [[WP:ATTACK|attacks]] against people living or dead, and in violation of [[WP:A]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:Coatrack]].
Time reported: 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Nothingbutthetruth2006 is purely a troll account created to cause [[WP:SNEAKY]] vandalism by deceptively terming sources like [[Oxford University Press]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R._C._Majumdar&diff=prev&oldid=1246732062 as "unreliable"] in order to censor the content despite warnings. First he edit warred with his multiple IPs[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:40D0:C:D15:8000:0:0:0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:40D0:C:D15:DCC6:3897:E172:EF21] and now he is shamelessly causing disruption with a new account he created to evade 3RR.
*1st incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=prev&oldid=222888671 00:36, 2 July 2008 ]
*2nd incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=226573027&oldid=225741465 12:02, 19 July 2008]
*3rd incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=226663493&oldid=226574838 01:57, 20 July 2008]
 
Similarly, he falsely claimed that "Your source (Ahir, 2018) mentions Majumdar as a Nationalist"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ratnahastin&diff=prev&oldid=1246660772] and when I told him that nobody ever used such a source for the concerning claim[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ratnahastin&diff=prev&oldid=1246668193] he then falsely accused me of comprehension problems and went to claim it is "directly cited after the claim that he was a Hindu nationalist for the claim" instead of rectifying his false claim.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ratnahastin&diff=prev&oldid=1246731788] Undoubtedly [[WP:NOTHERE]]. <span style="font-family:'forte'">[[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] <b>([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])</b></span> 10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
;Related talk page vandalism
*1st incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=next&oldid=226663541 01:58, 20 July 2008]
 
:I will like to present my side of affairs here very plainly and I would really appreciate if the concerned administrator could see the history of the edits. First and foremost its very funny that he is accusing me of calling Oxford University Press as unreliable, in reality I was the one which was citing multiple publications of the Oxford University Press as proof. My problem was the he was making a wildly unorthodox claim that Majumdar promoted Hindu Nationalist interpretations of history and do not provide any proper citation to proof the claim and cites some works which are not about Majumdar to begin and in which he is said to be a Hindu Nationalist historian in passing. the current citation on the claim that he was a Nationalist that is citation no [4] was also originally added by Me along with other sources. Also I am not a troll account. [[User:Nothingbutthetruth2006|Nothingbutthetruth2006]] ([[User talk:Nothingbutthetruth2006|talk]]) 16:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEplgleplcl&diff=226574723&oldid=222889672 12:17, 19 July 2008]
::By saying "{{tq|and do not provide any proper citation to proof the claim and cites some works which are not about Majumdar}}" you have verified this report. There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R._C._Majumdar&diff=1246891186&oldid=1246704311 4 different academic sources] cited for saying he presented Hindu nationalist views and all of them verifies the information. <span style="font-family:'forte'">[[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] <b>([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])</b></span> 23:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::perhaps you do not know how citation works \, they mention it in passing and dont make a case for it . also Frontline is a pop magzine, and if you are talking about the number I had 5 sources saying he isnt a Hindu Nationalist but purely a Nationalist historian with the likes of people like Romilla Thapar saying the same [[User:Nothingbutthetruth2006|Nothingbutthetruth2006]] ([[User talk:Nothingbutthetruth2006|talk]]) 14:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== A lot of disruptive edits in football articles ==
====Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet [[Special:Contributions/Vria|User:Vria]]====
{{Atop|/64 range blocked for one year by ToBeFree.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)}}
*1st incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=217568070&oldid=215460291 7 June 2008]
@[[User:2603:8000:D300:3650:94B0:A582:5DF3:576E|2603:8000:D300:3650:94B0:A582:5DF3:576E]]
*2nd incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=217769597&oldid=217617644 00:13, 8 June 2008]
A lot of disruptive edits in football articles. Removes important information, doubles words, adds no reliable to article text, etc. [[User:Lado85|Lado85]] ([[User talk:Lado85|talk]]) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
*3rd incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=219220484&oldid=217997855 12:11, 14 June 2008]
{{Abot}}
*4th incident:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=220079642&oldid=219525054 12:54, 18 June 2008]
*5th incident:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=224023173&oldid=222889474 07:44, 7 July 2008]
*6th incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=225732013&oldid=224358008 11:28, 15 July 2008]
 
;Related== IP editor being disruptive on talk page vandalism ==
* {{ip|2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01::/64}}
* 1st incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=219220611&oldid=170522463 12:12, 14 June 2008]
<!-- links above inserted as a courtesy by Roxy. Luna's comment begins below. -->
 
Over the last few days (I suspect) one IP editor (a range of IPs all coming out of London) have been disruptive on [[Talk:Gender-critical feminism]], some comments have been removed but there is wide agreement they are in violation of [[Wikipedia:NOTFORUM]]. I am not sure what options we have for dealing with these editors but something needs to be done to get this to stop. [[User:LunaHasArrived|LunaHasArrived]] ([[User talk:LunaHasArrived|talk]]) 13:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVria&diff=225741841&oldid=220091183 12:49, 15 July 2008]
 
:OK, I shall stop editing then, I thought I was being helpful, :( [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:7896:3C92:6D02:675B|2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:7896:3C92:6D02:675B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01:7896:3C92:6D02:675B|talk]]) 13:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
====Related vandalism by suspected sockpuppet [[Special:Contributions/Iuqdropgl|User:Iuqdropgl ]]====
::If you want to stick around, I would suggest [[WP:why create an account|creating an account]] and working to improve a less controversial topic that interests you (or a [[Special:Random|Random]] one that doesn't), until you have a better grasp on how editing and [[WP:TPG|discussion]] works on Wikipedia. [[Help:Introduction]] and [[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure]] contain tutorials which are useful for newcomers. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|<span role="img" aria-label="talk page">💬</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|<span role="img" aria-label="contributions">📝</span>]]) 14:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
*1st incident: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School&diff=227657101&oldid=226753396 00:50, 25 July 2008]
:In the last day, IP [[Special:Contributions/2a00:23c4:b3ad:8e01:7896:3c92:6d02:675b|2a00:...:675b]] made 16(!) replies containing unconstructive rants about "gender ideology" and "newspeak" on the page, over 8KB of text; I [[Special:Diff/1246855625|removed their comments]] which were not threaded, which was before I saw this ANI thread. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|<span role="img" aria-label="talk page">💬</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|<span role="img" aria-label="contributions">📝</span>]]) 13:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
;Related talk page vandalism
*::They 1stjust incident:tried to [httphttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHoi_Ping_Chamber_of_Commerce_Secondary_School:Gender-critical_feminism&diff=227656815prev&oldid=2267629331246868062 00:49,revert] 25your July 2008]cleanup.
::Typically in cases like this, an admin can block the [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:B3AD:8E01::/64]] IP range for a week and hope the disruption stops. If that ended up not helping and the disruption returns, then after that a talk page protection can be considered. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 15:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::Actually after checking the /64 edit history, this user is the same that also did some talk page disruption last month ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender-critical_feminism&diff=prev&oldid=1242630679], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender-critical_feminism&diff=prev&oldid=1242630679]) and was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2A00%3A23C4%3AB3AD%3A8E01%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64 blocked then] by @[[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] (for the second time after having been blocked a few days prior), so I guess this is really that the IP user is just returning for more disruption this time. So, I guess we'll see if another IP block timeout works or not. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::: Shockingly(!) after their many promises to stop, the range is continuing to disrupt the page. In [[Special:Diff/1247004221|one]] they blame (rather, they rhetorically imagine blaming, for the sake of analogy) the [[2023 Nashville school shooting]] on the [[International Transgender Day of Visibility]]. In [[Special:Diff/1246914380|another]] they threaten to (and then claim to) donate to "a GC movement". Most recently they left a [[Special:Diff/1247021603|a blank comment]] just to soapbox more in the edit history. Pinging {{u|Rosguill}}, because you seem to be active; looks like a longer block on the range is necessary, given their obvious [[WP:NOTHERE]] behavior and perpetual failure to get the memo. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|<span role="img" aria-label="talk page">💬</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|<span role="img" aria-label="contributions">📝</span>]]) 15:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I've blocked for a month due to the odd and disruptive edit summary usage. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Persistent COI editor at [[Faith Theological Seminary]] ==
*Diff of vandalism warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iuqdropgl&diff=prev&oldid=227809056 18:55, 25 July 2008]
[[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Since 2011, [[User:Stephenhague|Stephenhague]] has exclusively edited [[Faith Theological Seminary]] (except for a few User Talk edits). In 2011, Stephenhague [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worm_That_Turned&diff=prev&oldid=410220199 disclosed] that they were employed by the seminary as the academic dean. The [https://www.ftscatonsville.org/our-leadership seminary's website] indicates that they are still employed by the seminary as one of its leaders.
:[[User:Eplgleplcl]] and [[User:Vria]] indefblocked as blatant SPAs, for persistently adding unsourced defamatory material despite being warned. [[Special:Contributions/Iuqdropgl|User:Iuqdropgl]] looks suspiciously like a sock, but I've just left a warning for now. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
I have opened two discussions about this editor at [[WP:COIN]]. One was opened in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_195#Faith_Theological_Seminary January 2023] and archived with no action taken. I opened another report a few days ago and no action has yet been taken by an administrator. I know that few admins monitor that noticeboard and it's not uncommon for even clear problems to go unaddressed there simply because they're overlooked so I am raising this here.
 
If the consensus is that it's okay for this editor to make promotional edits to their employer's article without more clearly revealing that they're closely connected to the subject than a User Talk post from 2011 (in another user's User Talk page), please let me know and I'll drop this. But this looks like a blatant violation of both [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:PAID]]. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:I have partially blocked them from the article. They're welcome to use talk page but this is not a license to be disruptive there. Meta level, @[[User:Axad12|Axad12]] raised this lack of action on COIN on my Talk after I said at one point it had no teeth. I think AN/ANI are better suited when action is needed, as it was here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 14:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Disruptive IP range ==
 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&start=&tagfilter=&target=103.38.17.0%2F24&offset=&limit=500 103.38.17.0/24] Has edits going back years, mostly disruptive (OR and outright vandalism, mostly no-ES with unexplained removals and unsourced edits). The IPs appear to belong to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Symon Sadik]] in line with that network's focus on [[Shakib Khan]] and [[Cinema of Bangladesh]] (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shikari_(2016_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1246170401]).
== FYI ==
 
I can't see anthing good coming from this range and a block appears necessary considering the extent and amount of disruption that is coming from here [even if we were to disregard socking]. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 14:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Enemies of me have been having a gay-old-time attacking me at [[WT:FRINGE]]. Of course, this is not the place to do it. So I removed the discussion of me (which was extremely personal and offensive) with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories&curid=3785735&diff=227829760&oldid=227829257 this diff]. Just giving you all a heads-up for the eventual brouhaha. [[User:ScienceApologist|ScienceApologist]] ([[User talk:ScienceApologist|talk]]) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:[[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]], please provide examples of this disruption you're upset about. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:The material wasn't that bad, and looked to me to be well on track towards being a great linkable archived discussion of 'why is this fringe thing so mean to me and my wacky ideas?' each time a new editor asks. I agree that it opened with some shots at you, but the more you obscure things like that, the more Ludwigs2 and others will attack you for it. I'm going to publicly ask you to restore that section. You're welcome to ignore it now, the focus has shifted to why those two are in the wrong, so hiding it now, after hours of discussion, isn't a sensible way to handle it. had you blanked it after the first four or five comments, I'd support you 100%, but the conversation's grown and changed course. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::FANPOV insertion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shikari_(2016_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1246170401], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nabab&diff=prev&oldid=1246170223], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dard_(2024_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1226597714]; vandalism: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chanda_(1962_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1229742374], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Loot_(2012_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1219893608], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Found_footage_(film_technique)&diff=prev&oldid=1222383383], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Found_footage_(film_technique)&diff=prev&oldid=1222384327], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dal&diff=prev&oldid=1182824782], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apu_Trilogy&diff=prev&oldid=1164798041], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panipat_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1087007048], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangladeshi_diaspora&diff=prev&oldid=1245374800] are some of these. Most of the edits from the range are box-office fudging (some examples): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toofan_(2024_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1246168879], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boomerang_(2024_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1245851812], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umro_Ayyar_-_A_New_Beginning&diff=prev&oldid=1242567099], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mon_Mane_Na_(2008_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1233851357]) and just general disruption in [[South Asian cinema]] related articles [as mentioned above "OR and outright vandalism, mostly no-ES with unexplained removals and unsourced edits" is usual within these edits by the disruptor]. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 07:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hello, [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]],
:::The edits I checked were pretty bad so I've blocked the range for a week. I have limited experience with range blocks so if another administrator could check my work, that help would be welcome. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Unsourced bloat on Argentine demographics ==
== The trickeries of Troy 07 ==
 
It seems that the administrators have closed their eyes to the abuses of [[User:Troy 07|Troy 07]]. This user, by all sort of trickeries, has been systematically undoing or vandalizing all my edits. In the most absurd cases, he uses his "sock puppets" [[Special:Contributions/66.183.101.6|66.183.101.6]], [[Special:Contributions/66.183.98.107|66.183.98.107]] and [[Special:Contributions/66.183.111.222|66.183.111.222]] (and maybe others). Although some of the articles have been temporarily protected, I will not desist from restoring my edits. I hope that some administrator will prevent him from insisting on his edit war. [[User:Ausonia|Ausonia]] ([[User talk:Ausonia|talk]]) 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:These two editors;
::{{user5|Troy 07}} and
::{{user5|Ausonia}}
:have recently shown up at [[WP:AN3]] (three cases will be found by searching for 'Ausonia'). There was also a sockpuppet report [[WP:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3]] claiming that Ausonia is a sock. No RFCU has been yet run, though a request could be filed. Ausonia's most recent activity has been insisting on changing technical descriptions of various Roman Catholic cardinals and sees to other titles that he prefers. Troy07 argues that the original titles are correct, and in many cases are required by [[WP:MOS]]. [[Pontiff]] and [[pope]] were semi-protected to stop editing by what seemed to be IP socks of Ausonia.
:Re-opening Ausonia's closed sockpuppet report to impose more sanctions is one option. Ausonia's behavior does seem sockish; this is an account newly-created on July 2nd as a single-purpose account that edit-wars on one issue acoss a range of articles. I haven't looked into whether Troy07 could be running any socks. Troy07 is also very interested in naming issues, but his account is open for a year longer, and he seems to listen to feedback. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::I have not edited various, but only two pages about Cardinals: [[Dean of the College of Cardinals]] and [[Odoardo Farnese (cardinal)]]. My edits on the Suburbicarian Sees are perfectly correct. The prior version, however, was not correct. Troy 07 has never argued anything. How and where [[WP:MOS]] requires the "original" titles? If you look into them, you will see that those IP are sock puppets of Troy 07. There is no doubt. [[User:Ausonia|Ausonia]] ([[User talk:Ausonia|talk]]) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Note''' Also see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RRN#User:Ausonia_reported_by_User:Troy_07_.28Result:_No_Action_.29] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RRN#User:Troy_07_reported_by_User:Ausonia_.28Result:_Protected.29] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3RRN#User:Troy_07_reported_by_User:Ausonia_.28Result:_Protected.29_2] '''[[User:Enigmaman|<font color="blue">Enigma</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:Enigmaman|<b><sup>message</sup></b>]]'' 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::These two have been at each others' throats for the last several weeks. Neither seems to wants to give any ground. I think this should go to an RFC, with a temporary moratorium prohibiting either of them editing articles dealing with the Catholic Church until they can come to some common ground. <b><font color="FF6600">[[User:Caknuck|caknuck]]</font> <sub><font color="black">[[User talk:Caknuck|°]]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is back from his wikisiesta</font></b> 20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
*I should like to comment, as an administrator, that the sure fire guaranteed way of getting sysop help for whatever problems you are having is <u>'''not'''</u> commencing your comment as did User:Ausonia. I read that sentence, wrote this and am now moving onto the next section to see if anyone needs any help... [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Several ranges of IPs are persistently inflating numerous Argentine demographics without source. Recently the most active ranges are {{Vandal|41.250.0.0/17}} (eg. [[Special:Diff/1246832132|diff]] in [[French diaspora]]), {{Vandal|105.155.128.0/17}}, {{Vandal|41.141.0.0/17}}, {{Vandal|105.154.0.0/20}} (blocked). IPs with identical behavior were around at least since August 2023 ([[Special:Diff/1172006916|diff]] by {{Vandal|105.156.13.118}}), and became particularly active from March 2024. Some have had short blocks, but more comprehensive broad and long term blocks are anticipated, even at the expense of collaterals. Note that ST47ProxyBot caught some, if that helps.
::I '''do not''' insist on continuing the edit war. It's hard for me to imagine you making claims like that as you have evidently done so today. Please discuss the issue with me instead of ignoring the issue.
::I deeply, deeply regret my part in this and feel terribly sorry for wasting the time of several administrators over such an issue, however, '''I kindly ask you''' to discontinue negative comments. I really could do without the insults, and would suggest that you use constructive criticism instead. For the most part, though, I will leave these articles for the administrators to deal with.
::I have neither the time nor the desire to keep up with what has been going on surrounding the issue. Please don't assume that I enjoy such ridiculous revert-warring. [[User:Troy 07|~ Troy]] ([[User talk:Troy 07|talk]]) 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Observed ranges (revised):
* 41.14x:
** 41.141.: {{Vandal|41.141.0.0/17}}
** 41.143.: {{Vandal|41.143.0.0/16}}
* 41.248.: {{Vandal|41.248.239.160}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A41.248.239.160 41.248.239.160 blocked] by ST47ProxyBot and from [[Special:Diff/1222368116|AIV 2024-05-06]].
* 41.250.:
** {{Vandal|41.250.0.0/17}}
*** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=41.250.49.174 filter log 41.250.49.174]
*** {{Vandal|41.250.80.108}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A41.250.80.108 41.250.80.108 blocked by ST47ProxyBot]
* 105.15x:
** 105.154.: {{Vandal|105.154.0.0/16}}
** 105.155.: {{Vandal|105.155.128.0/17}}
** 105.156.: {{Vandal|105.156.13.118}}
** 105.157.: {{Vandal|105.157.35.255}}, {{Vandal|105.157.59.197}} , {{Vandal|105.157.229.139}}
** 105.159.: {{Vandal|105.159.120.0/21}}
* {{Vandal|160.176.96.0/21}} (2024-04-20-)
* {{Vandal|196.127.192.0/18}} (2024-07-24-)
* {{Vandal|197.253.192.0/18}} (2024-08-14-)
Some of their frequent targets:
* [[Special:PageHistory/French diaspora]] ([[Special:Diff/1240354908|diff]] by {{Vandal|197.253.232.2}})
* [[Special:PageHistory/Ukrainian Argentines]]
* [[Special:PageHistory/Polish Argentines]]
They are also globally active:
* [[:fr:Franco-Argentins]]
** [[:fr:Special:Diff/213757904|diff]] by [[:fr:Spécial:Contributions/41.250.53.168]]
** [[:fr:Special:Diff/217477953|diff]] by [[:fr:Spécial:Contributions/196.127.211.74]]
--[[User:Wotheina|Wotheina]] ([[User talk:Wotheina|talk]]) 14:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
A few more illustrative examples:
* Hijack sourced entry; random country name: [[Special:Diff/1235118454|diff]] by {{Vandal|105.159.130.63}}
* Numbers are arbitrary: [[Special:Diff/1215158991|400,000]], [[Special:Diff/1220024760|400,000]], [[Special:Diff/1222354430|700,000]], [[Special:Diff/1226429969|600,000]], [[Special:Diff/1229734049|400,000]]
* Impossible delta; future stats: [[Special:Diff/1245088720|diff]] by {{Vandal|41.250.89.18}}
--[[User:Wotheina|Wotheina]] ([[User talk:Wotheina|talk]]) 03:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:[[User:Wotheina|Wotheina]], thank you for identifying these IP ranges but you need to provide some diffs of the damage that is being done because no one is going to go through the contribution history of all of these IP accounts looking at all of their edits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
== Vandalism at [[Abdul Ahad (disambiguation)]] ==
 
:: Sure, I had to.
The vanity biography of a non-notable astronomer was deleted via an AFD, and later attempts were made to recreate it 4 times. However, {{vandal|Uranometria}}, who I suspect to be a sock of {{user|Kingkong77}} keeps restoring a link to the talk page, without any clear logical reason to do so.
:: Observed ranges (revised):
::* 41.14x:
::** 41.141.: {{Vandal|41.141.0.0/17}}: [[Special:Diff/1246570072|diff]] by {{Vandal|41.141.120.30}}
::** 41.143.: {{Vandal|41.143.0.0/16}}: [[Special:Diff/1241284007|diff]] by {{Vandal|41.143.234.224}}
::* 41.248.: {{Vandal|41.248.239.160}}: [[Special:Diff/1222355720|diff]]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A41.248.239.160 41.248.239.160 blocked] by ST47ProxyBot and from [[Special:Diff/1222368116|AIV 2024-05-06]].
::* 41.250.: {{Vandal|41.250.0.0/17}}:
::** [[Special:Diff/1246832132|diff]] by {{Vandal|41.250.31.136}}
::** [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=41.250.49.174 filter log 41.250.49.174] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/38127830 diff in filter log])
::** [[Special:Diff/1231474775|diff]] by {{Vandal|41.250.80.108}}; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A41.250.80.108 41.250.80.108 blocked by ST47ProxyBot]
::* 105.15x:
::** 105.154.: {{Vandal|105.154.0.0/16}}:
::*** [[Special:Diff/1243095306|diff]] by {{Vandal|105.154.58.0}}
::*** [[Special:Diff/1215172911|diff]] by {{Vandal|105.154.177.100}}; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A105.154.177.100 blocked]
::** 105.155.: {{Vandal|105.155.128.0/17}}: [[Special:Diff/1229993928|diff]] by {{Vandal|105.155.148.133}}
::** 105.156.: {{Vandal|105.156.13.118}}: [[Special:Diff/1172006916|diff]] by {{Vandal|105.156.13.118}} (see [https://web.archive.org/web/20160312135237/http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2004/04/27/t-749506.htm archived source])
::** 105.157.:
::*** {{Vandal|105.157.35.255}}: [[Special:Diff/1231901395|diff]]
::*** {{Vandal|105.157.59.197}}: [[Special:Diff/1230303414|diff]] (in [https://www.mofa.go.kr/www/wpge/m_21509/contents.do source], entry No.11 is UK, No.16 is Argentina])
::*** {{Vandal|105.157.229.139}}: [[Special:Diff/1230984552|diff]]
::** 105.159.: {{Vandal|105.159.120.0/21}}: [[Special:Diff/1242978666|diff]] by {{Vandal|105.159.127.114}}
::* {{Vandal|160.176.96.0/21}} (2024-04-20-): [[Special:Diff/1220024760|diff]] by {{Vandal|160.176.102.77}}
::* {{Vandal|196.127.192.0/18}} (2024-07-24-): [[Special:Diff/1239210424|diff]] by {{Vandal|196.127.211.74}}
::* {{Vandal|197.253.192.0/18}} (2024-08-14-): [[Special:Diff/1240351186/1240355760|combined diff]] by {{Vandal|197.253.232.2}}
:: --[[User:Wotheina|Wotheina]] ([[User talk:Wotheina|talk]]) 09:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::This is still an awful lot of information to comb through. I'm not optimistic that there will be an admin or editor willing to spend the time to plow through all of this but who knows, maybe one will! But I know I don't have the time to do so. You might look through this page and see ANI reports that are quickly responded to and model your next complaint on the format they have. They are generally brief and concise and easy to quickly digest. I appreciate the time you took to put this all together but it's just a lot of data to assess. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Persistent edit warring and possible conflict of interest by [[User:Earthh]] ==
The user has repeatedly restored link to the talk page in the disambiguation page, despite being told not to do so. I have reverted his edits 3 times, and would be happy if someone else can take a look and possibly undo this.
 
 
{{userlinks|Earthh}} Long history (for over a decade now) of removal of sourced content and edit warring at [[Mr. Nobody (film)‎]], creating an alternative reality where that film was a hit and persistently removing sourced content that says the film was a box office flop, despite the film's own director having called it a financial failure, which is sourced in the article. They even created a new rule and keep removing the film's box office gross because they claim (without a source) that "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Nobody_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1171475232 the film was released on streaming services in most countries]", but it was released theatrically in all of its production countries and it still flopped in all of them and everywhere else. They seem to act like a publicist (which falls under [[WP:COI]]) by removing even the slightest negative sourced content about [[Jared Leto]] and any article related to him, most notably when they claimed that Leto's performances in ''[[Suicide Squad (2016 film)|Suicide Squad]]'' and ''[[Morbius (film)|Morbius]]'' were acclaimed by critics despite several sources saying the opposite, see [[Talk:Morbius (film)/Archive 1#"Leto and Smith's performances were praised"|this]], [[Talk:Jared Leto#Suicide Squad|this]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1081530826 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1054116492 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1086272737 this], [[Talk:Mr. Nobody (film)/Archive 1#Biased article|this]] and [[Talk:Mr._Nobody_(film)/Archive_1#Review_discussion|this]]. User has argued with several editors and received several warnings from different editors about their edit warrings throughout the years, but nothing happens to them and they keep removing sourced content that goes against their personal preference and adding false information because they refuse to accept facts. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr.%20Nobody%20(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1237788955 their latest edit warring], they not only removed the box office gross, but also the film's distributors from the infobox (which were sourced) and added a new one that has no source and wasn't the distributor in any of the film's production countries, which they had originally added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Nobody_(film)&oldid=1232111951 on July 2, 2024] without a source and without any explanation. [[User:Zoolver|Zoolver]] ([[User talk:Zoolver|talk]]) 21:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
 
:You are required to notify User:Earthh of your complaint. I'm also not seeing where you have attempted to discuss this with Earthh, either on the talk pages of the articles you cite, or on their own talk page. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 22:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
'''Diffs:''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdul_Ahad_(disambiguation)&diff=227848816&oldid=227848585 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdul_Ahad_(disambiguation)&diff=227849546&oldid=227849087 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdul_Ahad_(disambiguation)&diff=next&oldid=227849702 this]. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] ([[User talk:Ragib|talk]]) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::I have notified them on their talk page [[User:AlexBobCharles|AlexBobCharles]] ([[User talk:AlexBobCharles|talk]]) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::There was a blackout in my neighbourhood yesterday right after I sent my report, so I couldn't left the message notifying Earthh, but fortunately {{ping|AlexBobCharles}} did that already (thank you!). And I honestly have no desire to waste my time with an editor who refuses to accept facts no matter how many discussions several people have had with them for over a decade to try and make them understand that they're wrong and should stop removing sourced content and replacing them with false information. I'm quite sure that this report won't go anywhere again as this is not even the first time that this user is reported for the same behavior. [[User:Zoolver|Zoolver]] ([[User talk:Zoolver|talk]]) 17:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I apologize for the delayed response to this discussion, my time dedicated to Wikipedia has become increasingly limited, and the summer break kept me away for over a month. I would also like to thank {{u|AlexBobCharles}} for bringing it to my attention, {{u|Zoolver}}'s approach has been anything but collaborative, as they did not notify me of this discussion and have avoided all attempts at reconciliation on the article's talk page or my user talk page, ignoring all suggestions proposed by WP:ANI regarding conflict resolution, and resorting to blackout and [[WP:NOTME]] to justify these shortcomings. I would like to remind Zoolver that if their contributions are contested, it is essential to discuss and seek consensus rather than persistently edit and engage in edit warring, especially concerning a [[WP:GA]] that has been vetted by multiple users. However, I do recognize that the user's perspective appears clearly non-neutral, as they resort to personal attacks against me and unfounded, ridiculous conjectures portraying me as a publicist for Leto. The discussions in which I was involved and that they reference have always concluded with a consensus; I don't understand what the correlation is with this discussion. Moreover, there is evident bias when I am accused of describing the film as a hit, while the version Zoolver is challenging me on describes it as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Nobody_(film)&oldid=1237788955 "box office disappointment."]
:::As previously mentioned to them, the issues raised have been extensively discussed in the past, both [[Talk:Mr._Nobody_(film)/Archive_1#Biased_article|here]] and during the subsequent [[Talk:Mr. Nobody (film)/GA1|GAN]]. The film's financier and international distributor, [https://medias.unifrance.org/medias/50/181/46386/presse/mr-nobody-2010-press-kit-2.pdf Wild Bunch], found it neither sellable nor distributable ([https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffly.jiuhuashan.beauty%3A443%2Fhttp%2Farchives.lesoir.be%2F%3Faction%3Dnav%26gps%3D759111#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url "ni vendable ni distribuable"]) due to its length; at the director's insistence, it received limited theatrical releases only in a few countries ([https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0485947/ countries where Mr. Nobody was released] vs. [https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt3792960/ countries where Van Dormael's next film was released]) and lacked promotion [https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/mr_nobody]. While Zoolver asserts that the film flopped everywhere, sources indicate it is the second highest-grossing Belgian film of the year [https://audiovisuel.cfwb.be/fileadmin/sites/sgam/uploads/Ressources/Publications/Bilans_Centre_du_Cinema_et_de_l_Audiovisuel/Bilan_2012.pdf] and one of the top-grossing films ever from Belgium [https://audiovisuel.cfwb.be/fileadmin/sites/sgam/uploads/Ressources/Publications/Bilans_Centre_du_Cinema_et_de_l_Audiovisuel/Bilan_2021.pdf]. This, without a doubt, does not suffice to categorize it as a box office success, as explicitly stated in the article even before their contributions, although Box Office Mojo's data is incomplete. For instance, data from Canada (one of the production countries) is missing because the BO Mojo algorithm does not track the Canadian release unless it coincides with the U.S. release (a notable example is [https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0401085/ C.R.A.Z.Y.], one of the highest-grossing films in Canada, which BO Mojo does not track). In all major markets, the film was released only on home video and streaming formats, distributed similarly to films like [[Beasts of No Nation (film)|Beasts of No Nation]], [[Roma (2018 film)|Roma]], and [[The Irishman]] (in the United States, Mr. Nobody was initially available on video on demand and then in four theaters only). Multiple sources suggest that the film found commercial success precisely through these formats [https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/mr-nobody-movie-review/2013/10/30/bb919da0-402c-11e3-9c8b-e8deeb3c755b_story.html][https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/indie-stream-four-years-sci-637438/][https://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/mr_nobody][https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-spectacular-mr-nobody-is-finally-coming-to-a-theater-near-you-b46f8f46f4de/]. What emerged needs to be clearly reflected on the page, and I will try to edit it in the coming days. In summary, Wikipedia relies on what the sources state, not on Zoolver's viewpoint, and I again encourage them to discuss collaboratively on the talk page.--[[User:Earthh|Earthh]] ([[User talk:Earthh|talk]]) 15:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:This appears stale. Please use the Talk page to discuss the sourcing. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 18:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Hezarfen gaming EC system to get around editing restriction ==
:I'm not an administrator, but I have some interest and training in astronomy, so let me chip in. I hadn't heard of this guy before, but he seems notable enough for a biography, so I support recreation; he's been in a few newspapers, including the [[Guardian]], apparently, and on TV and [[BBC]] radio. Being given an Honorary Membership in the [[Bangladesh Astronomical Society]] is an achievement too. I'm not saying he's the next [[Hubble]], but he's at least worth a short article.
:'''''However''''', I strongly disagree with [[User:Uranometria]]'s reversions given above; a link from article space into Talk space is never appropriate, and he needs to settle disputes instead of just uselessly thrashing the page ("[[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]])". --<span style="color:blue">[[User talk:Grey Knight|<sub>tiny plastic</sub> Grey Knight]]</span> <span style="color:#777">[[User:tiny plastic Grey Knight|&#x2296;]]</span> 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::For exactly that reason (no links to talk from mainspace) I've reverted again. Unless further reverts happen it should be fine. I'm watchlisting the page, just in case. <font color="green">[[User:Lifebaka|''lifebaka'']]</font> <small>([[User talk:Lifebaka|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Lifebaka|contribs]])</small> 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Me too. There is now [[Talk:Abdul Ahad (disambiguation)#The astronomer|a talkpage discussion]] about if it's appropriate to recreate or not; please use it, guys! --<span style="color:blue">[[User talk:Grey Knight|<sub>tiny plastic</sub> Grey Knight]]</span> <span style="color:#777">[[User:tiny plastic Grey Knight|&#x2296;]]</span> 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== Once again: topic ban of [[user:Kossack4Truth]] from Obama pages for review ==
{{resolved|Topic ban imposed with community consensus. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}}
{{Archive top}}
OK. Briefly, {{user|Kossack4Truth}} is an [http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Kossack4Truth&site=en.wikipedia.org agenda-driven single-purpose account] on [[Barack Obama]]. He has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Kossack4Truth blocked 3 times] in just over a month for edit-warring and disruption on those pages. After his most recent block, there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive445#User:Kossack4Truth_disruption_on_the_Barack_Obama_talk_page AN/I discussion] which, I believe, supported a 4-6 month topic ban. Kossack4Truth promptly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kossack4Truth&diff=prev&oldid=224399542 "retired"], so I dropped the issue as moot.
 
{{userlinks|Hezarfen}} has been blocked three times for violating EC restriction for Armenia Azerbaijan (see user's block log). They are now making hundreds of 2-character edits to their user page (> 350 today), I presume to gain EC status. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 17:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
As in the past when he's briefly laid low, his "retirement" was brief and he reactivated the account today by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&oldid=227929681#User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_reported_by_User:Kossack4Truth_.28Result:_No_violation_.29 filing an iffy 3RR report], shopping the same complaint at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227829118 AN/I]. Not to mention rather odd comments: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Noroton&diff=prev&oldid=227836895] and claiming to other admins that he was never officially topic-banned ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seicer&diff=prev&oldid=227843405], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cailil&diff=prev&oldid=227842816]).
 
:I have not made any changes to any semi-protected article or to extended confirmed protected article in the past or present. The rule here is clear. You cannot judge my experimental changes by looking into a magic ball. There are no restriction rules on the changes I have made.
I believe there was and is ample justification and support for a 4-6 month topic ban, and was prepared to implement one after the prior discussion. Kossack4Truth evaded this by retiring. Since he is now active again, I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKossack4Truth&diff=227856144&oldid=227854404 imposed the topic ban]. I'm bringing it here for review and to see if there are substantial objections to the topic ban. Given that these threads uniformly deteriorate into a steel cage match between involved editors, I'd ask that editors actively editing the Obama page refrain from comment here to allow for potentially more objective input. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Example: A new editor makes 10 dummy edits to become autoconfirmed, and then makes controversial changes to semi-protected articles, moves a promotional draft to article space, or otherwise edits disruptively or vandalizes articles. >>> '''I am not a new editor and I do not need to do anything to be autoconfirmed.'''
:Example: An editor makes many unconstructive edits in a sandbox to become extended confirmed, and then makes controversial changes to extended confirmed protected articles. >>> '''never made "controversial" or any changes to extended confirmed protected articles. Also so-called "violating EC restriction for Armenia Azerbaijan" is nonsense, I have not made any changes to any extended confirmed articles in the past.'''
:Unfortunately, there is a clique here that tries to block every issue related to Azerbaijan by calling it Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Azerbaijan is a state that exists independently of its relations with Armenia. You cannot block every issue related to Azerbaijan in this way. For this reason, no article about Azerbaijan can be updated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators also support this situation. [[User:Hezarfen|Hezarfen]] ([[User talk:Hezarfen|talk]]) 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::What was your intention in repeatedly removing the numbers "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9" from your user page, one after the other, 349 times, and then stopping just after you obtained EC at 502 total edits? I'd be fascinated to know what you were doing if you ''weren{{'}}t'' gaming permissions. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::That's a good question. [[User:Hezarfen|Hezarfen]], how do you explain these edits? What were you trying to accomplish? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 18:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:Indeffed as Not Here for the clear gaming above, but also a side of RGW for ''For this reason, no article about Azerbaijan can be updated. Unfortunately, Wikipedia administrators also support this situation.''. They're welcome to file an unblock if they have an interest in editing collaboratively. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 18:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== IP adding slurs to articles (and adding unsourced information about slurs to articles about slurs) ==
:::Talk about arrogance. Unbelievable. First you try to get me banned. Then, rather than address the real source of the problem, you topic ban K4T and Then come here soliciting support, rather than even looking like you might consider taking action against the real source of the problem: the editors who keep baiting and provoking us. K4T did what he was supposed to do when he saw a problem. He gave an abusive editor awarning and was blocked three days for it. Now he comes to ANI and he gets a topic ban for it? Unbelievable. [[User:WorkerBee74|WorkerBee74]] ([[User talk:WorkerBee74|talk]]) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
[[User:2603:8001:D340:5000:4823:15B2:FAE0:4561]] [[User_talk:2603:8001:D340:5000:4823:15B2:FAE0:4561|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:D340:5000:4823:15B2:FAE0:4561|(contrib)]] adds slurs to blp articles and adds unsourced information about slurs to articles about slurs. Was warned a lot - see talk page. [[User:Luhanopi|Luhanopi]] ([[User talk:Luhanopi|talk]]) 18:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:I'll allow my recent posts at [[Talk:Barack Obama]] to speak for themselves without MastCell's spin. I've been completely cordial at [[Talk:Barack Obama]], I've discussed the edits rather than the editors, and I haven't edit warred. I wasn't topic banned in the previous attempt. It's not just a claim. It's a fact. I notice your campaign to get community support for an indef block of WorkerBee74 was a miserable failure, and now you've turned your attention to me. MastCell, stop throwing your weight around in this direction and start paying attention to the ceaseless baiting and badgering coming from certain other editors. Show everyone the edit I've made on [[Barack Obama]] or [[Talk:Barack Obama]] since reactivating my account that justifies this unilateral action or revoke your topic ban. Go ahead, pick the one edit at [[Barack Obama]] or [[Talk:Barack Obama]] since reactivating my account that you find most offensive, post the whole edit here, and let uninvolved and '''''truly neutral''''' admins judge for themselves without your spin. Furthermore, I'm not a single purpose account. That accusation used to have some legs, but not any more. I've edited dozens of articles and welcomed dozens of new users.
:I have blocked the IP for vandalism. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Cullen328}}, may I ask you why 72h? [[User:Luhanopi|Luhanopi]] ([[User talk:Luhanopi|talk]]) 18:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Luhanopi}}, I wanted to send a stronger message than the commonplace 31 hour block handed out to IP editors. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=2603%3A8001%3AD340%3A5000%3A4823%3A15B2%3AFAE0%3A4561%2F64&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 The /64] has been doing this since September 1. So I'm expanding the block to a rangeblock. This history also demonstrates that it's not just a few-minute problem, giving additional support to the use of a several-day block. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 19:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, {{u|DMacks}} [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Disruptive test editing by Eksilon ==
:Other admins are encouraged to take a very close look at my '''''recent behavior''''' and try to figure out how MastCell could possibly be justified in doing this. [[User:Kossack4Truth|Kossack4Truth]] ([[User talk:Kossack4Truth|talk]]) 17:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
[[User:Eksilon|Eksilon]] has been making disruptive test edits despite multiple warnings across several months. They frequently introduce deliberate factual errors to existing articles and create unfinished (infobox only) articles with historically inaccurate titles in the main space. My theory is that Eksilon is test editing with their own imaginative, fictional ideas, but despite being told six times about their sandbox, they continue to make these edits in the main space and have yet to communicate on their talk page. They are clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia]], and even if one assumes good faith (just test editing, doesn't know better even though they should by now), their disruptive edits are unlikely to stop because communication from them seems unlikely. <big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 20:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:*'''Support''' a topic ban of at least three months based upon the disruptive editing practices exhibited by K4T. "Retirement" is no excuse to dismiss earlier conversations and a consensus for such a sanction. Coming out of "retirement" to file a frivolous [[WP:AN3|AN3]] report, which was dismissed by '''four''' administrators (sorry to bust your bubble ThuranX), and then shop it around at ANI on an old thread indicates that you haven't given up your old habits a bit.
:As evidenced in a prior ANI case, I voiced my support then for a topic ban as an uninvolved administrator, and I am voicing my support for it now. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Fully '''support''' a topic ban; "retiring" to avoid sanctions does not magically undo the behavior that lead to the sanctions. A topic ban was appropriate then, it is still appropriate now. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:'''No objections.''' [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::: IF K4T will sign on to the attempt to give clean slates, forget old feuds, and work as an honest broker for consensus that we spoke of above,, then I vote for a clean slate and let bygones be bygones. If he can't do that, then let the community impose whatever sanctions consensus seems fit to met out. Others who have engaged in misbehavior. Lots of editors could use a fresher start there, and he deserves no less. The atmosphere seems to be changing, and if he wants to be a part of that process, now that he is aware of it, great. If he does not, then I imagine your eagle eyes will be on him and he will quickly hang himself.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
*Endorse the topic ban. As far as I was concerned the result of the last K4T topic-ban discussion was that he was placed under restriction. K4T's apparent attempt at evading sanctions by "retiring" makes matters worse in my view. I'd also like to remind involved users that MastCell asked for "''editors actively editing the Obama page'' [to] ''refrain from comment here''." If you want wider input please allow those for us who are [[WP:UNINVOLVED|uninvolved]] to review this--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
*This is a continuing battleground, and it needs to be cooled off. From what I've seen, K4T is a prime instigator in the battles; I'd '''support''' a topic ban through the elections. K4T notes above that he has been working on other articles and broadening his spectrum - this is a good opportunity to keep up that effort. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' until after the election. Good editors are spending too much time fighting over the same issue rather than being able to work on the rest of the article. At least [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=WorkerBee74&month=&year= one other] [[WP:SPA]] needs to step back and take on other topics as well to broaden his Wiki horizons. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Die4Dixie&month=&year= Another editor] has taken a recent interest. Please people, do not get hung up in one place only. --[[User:StuffOfInterest|StuffOfInterest]] ([[User talk:StuffOfInterest|talk]]) 18:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
<s>:: I resent your characterization as unhealthy. Which part of civil is the inference. I request that you retract that statement, and I will assume that some momentary lapse has provoked it and charitably forget that it was made. Senseless provocation like that is gratuitous and can't possibly be a part of building an encyclopedia.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 18:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)</s>
:::For reference, {{user|Die4Dixie}} has just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227879316 edited my comment] up above. The context of the statement has been changed because of this. --[[User:StuffOfInterest|StuffOfInterest]] ([[User talk:StuffOfInterest|talk]]) 19:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::And they've just warned via a template for it[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Die4Dixie&diff=prev&oldid=227881189]--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
And I responded to you there. As a new adminstrator, you should know better than to cleverly template an editor with my longevity .19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC) {{unsigned|Die4Dixie}}
:::::His [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Die4Dixie&diff=prev&oldid=227882024 reply] is pretty poor and assumes bad faith. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:: I see that my good faith efforts to work towards a consensus and peace making efforts on the page have been reduced to an "unhealthy interest". Pages that one chooses to edit are chosen by a principle of free association. I have no obligation to edit anything other than what I choose. there appears to be a bandwagon here. I removed an attack here, was templated, and the band wagon was cranked up. This behavior by three administrators, one recent, can only serve to elevate the level of wiki-drama that I and other editors have tried to dissipate on matters related to Obama.[[User:Die4Dixie|Die4Dixie]] ([[User talk:Die4Dixie|talk]]) 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
* Oppose. I've noticed a recent trend to defend the Obama article against any incursion of criticism. There are/were at least 3 threads in the last ten days or so here on AN/I, plus who-knows-how-many elsewhere. (I didn't count every WP page to check.) WOrkerbee and K4T both have issues, but so does Lulu of the Lotus eaters, and she got off scott-free. There's a lot of bias showing on AN/I and at the Obama pages. Frankly, it really seems like the liberal bias we're so often accused of having is really showing. So many of these conflicts on the Obama page are because there's nothing negative there. I've looked, and EVERY single item of contention has been shrunk to a minimum. The more I look at it, the more I realize any criticism is white-washed or marginalized. A few editors are opposed to that, but they get constantly shouted down because Obama's got tons of internet savvy supporters, who are pushing criticism off the page. It's hard to see how this is defended when the major offense is INCIVIL behavior in light of the POV swaying going on. They may need a CIVILITY PROBATION, but to topic ban people who offer balance and dissenting opinions specifically during the election period, to 'keep the page quiet' shows an agenda is being pushed. Obama looks good against McCain without Wikipedians pushing things. If this were the other way around, a glistening McCain article, I have to say, I believe we'd be seeing a different result here. It may be societal, but when we see such a push going on, silencing the voices that speak out entirely is a black eye for Wikipedia. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 06:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:All of the following should also be deleted because they're not genuine attempts by Eksilon at creating an article (evidenced by them being ''just'' copy-and-pasted infoboxes and tables from other articles) and are abandoned test edits cluttering the draft space:
Endorse topic ban for K4T, as before. No need for the ongoing disruption. [[User:R. Baley|R. Baley]] ([[User talk:R. Baley|talk]]) 06:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:* [[Draft:History of Burma (1988-2007)]]
* As suggested by myself back on 13 June 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Barack_Obama_pages#Kossack4Truth_banned], my position has not changed and I agree that a longer duration (of 4-6 months is warranted). '''Endorse topic ban.''' [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:* [[Draft:Spain in the Cold War]]
{{Archive bottom}}
:* [[Draft:Civilian Myanmar]]
:* [[Draft:Provisional Goverment of the German Democratic Republic (1918-1919)]]
:* [[Draft:Provisional Government of the German Republic]]
:* [[Draft:Dull colors]]
:<big>[[User:Yue|<span style="color:#757575; font-family:Consolas, monospace">''Yue''</span>]][[User talk:Yue|🌙]]</big> 20:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:I p-blocked them from mainspace in the hopes this gets them to engage on talk pages. Happy for anyone to lift that block if/once it's no longer necessary. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Mod removing legitimate requests on Talk Page (nsfw) ==
== Bedford and misogyny ==
 
Mod MrOllie is removing my request for someone add a Ejaculating Penis on Wikipedia page: The Human Penis, similar to how the Wikipedia Site for another language does it. He gives No explaination and is abusing Mod Power with this and He even threaten to remove right to edit. [[User:DaKocamasra1|DaKocamasra1]] ([[User talk:DaKocamasra1|talk]]) 23:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
*{{admin|Bedford}}
A bit of backstory: Bedford [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=227731391#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_July_19 suggested a rather... titillating... hook at DYK] which got accepted. An edit war erupted at {{lt|Did you know}} with several female admins - who themselves consulted male users - removing it because of its content. However, his objections to the removal are not that pleasant: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&diff=227801216&oldid=227800757 "feminist objectons is not good enough of a reason to remove this."], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&oldid=227818697#Take_a_moment.3F "I feel so sorry for you for being so pathetic"], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=227840827#Yay_women accusations of vandalism and censorship to someone who didn't even remove it], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Recent_additions&diff=prev&oldid=227828699 "Besides, mantis was a dupe due to feminazis"]. Can we have a male admin warn him against such behaviour? I'm very concerned about his temprament, and I think that, sadly, if a female admin warned him, he'd accuse ''her'' of feminism too. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:So the argument is that DYK can't contain a hook about scantilly clad women? I'm not seeing how that's misogyny. Nothing on the main page should ever be edit warred over, even if one is being censored by evil femenists. Just drop the edit war and discuss it somewhere. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::Not the edit war, his attitude. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::The only problem I see here is that he edit warred, especially on this template. That's something that deserves some sort of rebuke. Just having unpopular opinions about feminism really shouldn't be an offense; disrupting Wikipedia over those opinions is a big deal though. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 17:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=227860633 "It was censorship by a bunch of extremists."] How is that acceptable? '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::The quote is okay, the actions he's talking about aren't. I don't really think censorship is a good word for it, but Bedford was just making an argument. There's nothing disruptive about that... I don't consider "extremists" to be a personal attack in this context. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 17:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Extremists blow up office blocks and abortion clinics. I don't any of that happening in the DYK template history, especially from the women. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It wasn't censorship and calling an editor an ''extremist'' could be taken as a PA (mind, though I think the DYK was dumb I didn't think it was misogynistic). [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::(ec) An extremist is merely someone with an extreme point of view. I don't think the terrorist context was meant, if it was then yes it would be a personal attack. But "extremist" alone doesn't have to be meant that way. Just for good measure I looked up the word in Webster's and it doesn't mention terrorism. This could be clarified by asking if he actually meant to accuse them of being terrorists. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::The problem is, these individuals don't both discussing things on DYK, and just arbitrarily remove anything they don't personally like from DYK. There were no Wikipedia rules against the hook. There have been things I objected to being on DYK, but I did not remove them. I can diagnose the sentiment against the hook, and call it what it is.--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="pink">Pray</font>]]</sup> 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Edit warring on DYK is a big no-no (the last time it happened, an admin was blocked IIRC). Instead of reinserting the same ole hook into DYK, Bedford should have just written a brand new non-controversial hook. He could have then started discussion regarding the problem with the original hook. That's the sensible way to handle such matters... <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] </span><sub>([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]])</sub> 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::::::[[WP:COMMONSENSE]].Have Ifa look at leastthe fiveOPs userscomments disagree(as withwell you,as Ithose thinkfrom youthe shouldIP realiseaddresses used, {{IP|95.91.249.178}} and {{IP|2A02:810D:8080:2780:5CD1:D5FD:99FE:F41D}}). I youdon'ret onhave theanything wrongelse sideto add. '''[[User:SceptreMrOllie|SceptreMrOllie]]''' <sup>([[User talk:SceptreMrOllie|talk]])</sup> 1700:5309, 2522 JulySeptember 20082024 (UTC)
:NOTHERE'd. DaKocamasra1, not MrOllie. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:Sigh. Why is a DYK hook such a big deal? A bunch of people disagreed with a hook, a new one could've inserted and no harm would be done. Why wheel-war over it? '''<font face="Arial">[[Special:Contributions/Maxim|<font color="#FF7133">Maxim</font>]]<sub><small>[[User talk:Maxim|<font color="blue">(talk)</font>]]</small></sub></font>''' 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::It was amusing to read the trolls' posts on the human penis talk page. One apparently was arguing that we need a full "gallery" of images to illustrate that article. I pointed them to the Commons where they can find plenty of penis photos. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::That's exactly what did happen - Krimpet inserted an alternate hook, but Bedford refused to accept it and edit warred to keep his own hook on the main page. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Point of order: this is about Bedford's attitude, not the DYK hook. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:What, that he likes bra and panties matches? It's normal for those of a certain age. Life goes on regardless. All that's demonstrated is that he needs to watch more real porn and has bad taste, because the wrestling in such matches invariably sucks. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:''(e/c)'' Bedford indeed engaged in some edit warring, and calling someone another editor a feminazi could probably be considered uncivil in most any context (no matter what you think about feminism, "anything-nazi" is pretty much name-calling). I don't see a problem with anyone, male or female, admin or non-admin, issuing him a warning and then (assuming the behavior is not ongoing) moving on with our lives. It's not like there is such a thing as an "official" warning... (except I suppose ArbCom restrictions, heh) --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 18:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::His latest outburst I know of was five minutes after I posted this thread. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::First off, can I note the sheer insane hilarity of an admin with an attitude that I consider pre-dates the internet lumbering about Main Page-related pages grumbling about uppity women? That said, I think he's demonstrated a total lack of understanding of WHEEL by noting that he stopped short of 3RR in defending his own hook on DYK, stepped well over the line by repeatedly accusing fellow admins who disagree with him of forming a ideological cabal ("bunch of feminists") in gender discriminatory language ("feminazis"), and continues to show a general lack of understanding that he's acting like a total dick. (I'm willing to put that wording to a vote to demonstrate that most users would find it accurate.) I especially love his accusation on his talk page that it's a conflict of interest for women to attempt to remove DYK hooks they find bring disrepute to the wiki, which also includes the brilliantly phrased and punctuated, "I feel sorry for you, to be so pathetic". I figure the only reason there doesn't seem to be a movement to desysop Bedford is because he appears so utterly hapless. It's like one of those fish out of water movies when the Australian woodsman goes to the big city or the big city lawyer's car breaks down in the countryside. I just keep waiting for Bedford to discover the bidet or try to milk a cow, or whatever the equivalent is here. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== RealDr.Method and persistent addition of unsourced music genres ==
I've left him a civility warning. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I was recently reading [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_highlights|talk page highlights]] then clicked over here and forgot which page I was reading. Someone should copy this over. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::::This happens :) [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
{{userlinks|RealDr.Method}} - Keeps adding unsourced genres to articles for music, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Arrest the President|prev|1245525212|1}}, {{diff|Fuck You (Dr. Dre song)|prev|1245795087|2}}, {{diff|Menace II Society (soundtrack)|prev|1246324530|3}}, {{diff|From tha Chuuuch to da Palace|prev|1246665986|4}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 00:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I have to admit that this situation really pissed me off and I should have handled this better. I reacted to being called [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=227805462&oldid=227805125 sad], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=227811082&oldid=227810670 pathetic], feminist etc. What did Bedford think he would achieve by using emotive language like "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=227860633&oldid=227840827 extremists]" and "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Recent_additions&diff=prev&oldid=227828699 feminazis]" or comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=227807971&oldid=227807909 this], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=227811448&oldid=227811189 this], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=227807704&oldid=227805781 this]? That's definitely not how to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphim_Whipp&diff=227807570&oldid=227382911 "win"] an argument.
:I have indefinitely blocked RealDr.Method from article space although they are free to make edit requests on article talk pages. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== [[User:Gwapo461]] reported by [[User:Mvcg66b3r]] ==
This was way out of line and I'm glad people called him on it. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 23:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
{{userlinks|Gwapo461}}
 
Creating a [[WP:HOAX|blatant hoax]] at [[Draft:DXZK-TV]] (already marked for speedy deletion). May have questionable edits at other articles (see contribs). [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 04:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I see a bunch of purposeful misunderstandings and self-righteousness. The fact is that a few women decided they should rule what is covered in DYK, even through they do not contribute anything. It has been proven that hooks regarding attractive women are popular, which is why it was used. I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions. Personally, I'm done with this topic, as I have bigger concerns than this triviality.--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="pink">Pray</font>]]</sup> 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:This never should have reached ANI, but I'd like to make a comment while I am here.
:Put away the spade and climb out of that hole, will ya? '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:From time to time, we find users making hoax broadcast station pages, sometimes in draftspace but usually in userspace. These are blatant hoaxes to people with topic familiarity but not necessarily to general editors. In userspace, these are U5 NOTWEBHOST violations. But when they slot into draftspace, they somehow become way too difficult to remove. Some pages in draftspace, especially obvious hoaxes, never can be encyclopedic topics, but yet we have had [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KFBG-TV (2nd nomination)]], [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KBQS-TV]], [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WWWJ-FM]], etc. I understand why there is leniency around the Draft namespace, but these are not viable topics for articles. [[User:Sammi Brie|<span style="color:#ba4168">Sammi Brie</span>]] (she/her • [[User talk:Sammi Brie|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sammi Brie|c]]) 06:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:Dear me. Now you're resorting to calling people jealous? You clearly still have no grasp of what the issue was here. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::There is a problem here, [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] and [[User:Sammi Brie|Sammi Brie]]. For CSD, it has to be an obvious hoax, one that anyone could spot. For editors who are knowledgeable about radio stations and broadcasting, I guess you can tell when a draft or main space article is inaccurate. But to the admin patrolling CSD categories, it might just look like a regular radio station article. Of course, if there are sources, they can confirm the existence of the subject but not all drafts are sourced. Is there any way to tell a real radio station from a phony one? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed. This isn't about the DYK topic, it's about how the editor responded to disagreement. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Liz|Liz]] The easiest way would be to consult lists of authorized broadcast stations. Especially in call sign-titled countries, these can quickly prove or disprove existence for currently operating stations. It might also be possible to infer reliability for some users (especially those that do kids TV hoaxes like these) from prior activity. [[User:Sammi Brie|<span style="color:#ba4168">Sammi Brie</span>]] (she/her • [[User talk:Sammi Brie|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sammi Brie|c]]) 02:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
==Physical threat==
:Bedford please consider refactoring your post. Attributing the issue bad faith assumptions like "purposeful misunderstandings" is not acceptable. The way to clear up any misunderstanding is to comment on the topic of disagreement rather than describing the people you are disagreeing with. You continue to speculate and comment on other editors in a derogatory way and that is not cool. I realize you must feel under attack right now, and are not likely to be receptive to my critique. But I hope someone who knows you better will take a moment to email you and reaffirm that my concerns about your reaction to this dispute are valid. I would hate to see you dismiss these concerns and possibly cause yourself more grief in the future because your friends do not care enough to involve themselves and help guide you in this area.--<i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::I did not want to get back in this nonsense, but if you insist. Would you prefer the term "personal-worldview misunderstandings", as it reflects the fact that those who are trying to bully me have not opened themselves to the fact that not everyone shares their worldview, and they need to be more tolerant of those differences? As I said before, I'd rather be spending this time writing new articles, not get mixed into this abyss.--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="pink">Pray</font>]]</sup> 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I would prefer that you ask a few people whose opinions you respect if they would look at my comments and tell you what they think of my concerns and how the things I pointed out in your edit could cause you problems if you edit in the same vein in future disputes.--<i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Tejas pratihar is using physical threats to impose his bad edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uttarakhand&diff=prev&oldid=1246991235]. He is also restoring his poor edits that I've reverted with abusive edit summaries, alleging me to be a "jealous [[Rajput]]". Also vandalised my userpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ratnahastin&diff=prev&oldid=1246994709] <span style="font-family:'forte'">[[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] <b>([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])</b></span> 07:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::Could I make a suggestion? Can we put this thread on hold for 24 hours? I would exhort Bedford especially not to comment further at this time, with the assurances that obviously nobody is going to block him or anything dumb like that. Let it go for a day, and see how you feel tomorrow. I can't imagine a normally level-headed editor like Bedford making insinuations like this while calmed down -- even if he feels they are accurate, he must realize how much it will piss some people off?
::On the other side, too, let's try not bait Bedford here. Not that I see any baiting right now, but let's not have it start.
::If we can all stop making gender-charged comments, I think underneath it all there's really nothing to see here. Bedford made a DYK suggestion that some people found offensive. We don't have to agree that it ''was'' offensive, nor do we have to agree that it was inoffensive. We just need to agree to stop hatin' on each other. :D --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] ([[User talk:Jaysweet|talk]]) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Are you really replying to my post cause I don't see any gender charged comments that I would need to stop. I am not into baiting people nor rising to bait I am offered much less "hatin' on" anyone. While I understand your concern about the effects of Bedford's temper on his edits regarding of this issue, frankly I see no reason to put off ''my'' thoughts on this issue. If you have a problem with something I have said, please bring it up explicitly instead making vague accusations that you are concerned I (among others I suppose) am going to begin baiting him, use gender-charged language, or weirdest of all feel the need to assure no blocks are forthcoming (where has anyone mentioned blocking him?) while explaining that underneath it all there is "nothing really to see." You do realize that last statement only gives Bedford confidence that his behavior is not problematic that his evaluation is correct. What is needed here is someone like you, who apparently is already acquainted with Bedford, to '''step-up''' and say "Bedford that is not cool you really need to comment on content not contributers. By the way don't edit war 3RR isn't an entitlement and it sets a bad example when admins edit war." Taking such a principled stance about what the actual best practices for editing Wikipedia are, would do loads more to resolve this than all your vague hand-wringing about postponing it.--<i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 01:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:I found Bedford's comments offensive and I think it makes Wikipedia look incredibly bad having an admin make such derogatory and sexist comments about his colleagues. I also think it's inappropriate for someone to nominate, promote and then edit war to keep their own hook on the front page. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:I assume the physical threat is in the Hindi text since I don't see any in the English. Provided the comment isn't so bad that it definitely needs to be wiped from sight and not spoken about it might be helpful to provide a rough translation for the benefit of those why cannot understand the text. That said the racism in their comments is IMO enough for an indef. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
===Section break===
::Google Translate is certainly not 100% accurate but I find it a pretty good indicator most of the time. They render the edit summary as {{tpq|If it is very hot then come and talk to me so that this game does not happen to me}}. If that machine translation is anywhere close to accurate, I fail to see anything resembling a physical threat. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
We seem to have several problems here:
:::Concur with Cullen, looking through that and the other contributions I can't find any I would consider physical threats. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*Wheel-warring on the main page.
{{Tq|I am using authentic sources but a rajput person change the edit again again its last warning to the person अगर भई जदा गर्मी हो तो मिलके बात करले मेरे पे ये खेल ना होवे}}
*A misunderstanding of edit warring ("the only reason [I stopped] is due to 3RR" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=prev&oldid=227811082] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=227811448]).
"If you're getting too heated, let's meet and talk. I don't want to play this game." Most of the meaning was lost in translation . " मिलके" means 'meet', he is asking me to meet them (likely in real life) because I'm "getting too heated", one can easily guess what he is implying here. <span style="font-family:'forte'">[[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] <b>([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])</b></span> 08:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*Personal attacks ("feminazis" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Recent_additions&diff=prev&oldid=227828699] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=227803005]; "I can't help but wonder if there was some jealously is some contributors hearts. I stand by my actions." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=227918211]).
:{{u|Ratnahastin}}, surely you are familiar with the 21st century concept of meeting someone on the internet. Zoom calls. Online chats. Dating sites. Wikipedia talk pages. You have presented very thin soup which is more like a broth as your evidence here, when what we need is a hearty thick stew with plenty of chunks of meat and vegetables. Speaking figuratively, of course. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*Ascribing motives ("a bunch of feminists decide to censor Wikipedia, as they'd rather do that than actually do something fruitful for Wikipedia. Sad. Oh so sad. Pathetic, too." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=227805462&oldid=227805125]).
:It's possible Tejas pratihar might be unaware of this discussion even if they had checked out their talk page since while Ratnahastin did notify them [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tejas_pratihar&diff=prev&oldid=1246993205], this was lost when their talk page which had been moved elsewhere was restored. I've given a new notice just to make sure. While I agree there doesn't seem to be any evidence for a physical threat, vandalising Ratnahastin user page isn't acceptable. More significantly, IMO them continually blaming "Rajput people" [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1246992762] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1246992659] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tikola_Kalan&diff=prev&oldid=1246992540] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timli_state&diff=prev&oldid=1246992384] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1246992223] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parihar_(clan)&diff=prev&oldid=1246991955] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uttarakhand&diff=prev&oldid=1246991235] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mihira_Bhoja&diff=prev&oldid=1210211697] for whatever is simply unacceptable even without considering them bringing up "rajput feel jealousy". Personally I feel it's enough for an indef at least until we can be sure they're not going to use someone's caste or race against them in irrelevant ways. But in any case, I've given them a warning and IMO any continuation is definitely enough for an indef. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*Demeaning behavior ("Then again, those who can't pick good hook are the most likely to critique; it's the way of the world." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=227869268&oldid=227869052]; "Thanks for confirming I'm better than you" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=227807704&oldid=227805781]).
*Material on their userpage which brings Wikipedia into disrepute ("The second greatest country ever [is] the United States of America, and the greatest country ever [is] the Confederate States of America.").
*Absolutely vile offsite harassment: <nowiki>http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=91214440&blogID=418159317</nowiki>, [http://www.webcitation.org/5ZaZbXmQh backup in case it's taken down]
<blockquote>I've long realized I am a magnet for attracting cretins, who think they will, in wrestling parlance, "get over on me". Sadly, Wikipedia ia huge website and, as a result, '''there are a lot of cretins'''. Just this morning I had to deal with '''a bunch of PMS from a few feminazis''' that did not like a hook used on the DYK section of Wikipedia's front page, dealing with a bra & panties match. Not politically correct, so '''the harpies attack''', and then accuse me of bullying when it is they themselves ganging up to bully on me. '''Is it just a mix of PC and PMS?''' Is it because '''they are unattractive and don't like being even slightly reminded of it'''? Who knows? <small>(Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school. - 202.155)</small> The fact they are still moaning over it says I struck too close to home in analyzing the reason fo their being in a frenzy. They are overcome with the belief that their excrement doesn't stink, when it absolutely reeks.</blockquote>
This type of combativeness and unseemly behavior is [[User talk:Bedford/Archive8#Question|nothing new]] from Bedford. I suggest a [[WP:RFC/U|request for user conduct]] be filed. I am also declining to post this from my account: I am a person of color who edits under my real name, lives close to Bedford and fears harassment or violence. I do not enjoy playing this card, but I grew up in the South and have good reason to fear Confederates and their ilk. [[Special:Contributions/202.155.167.221|202.155.167.221]] ([[User talk:202.155.167.221|talk]]) 01:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Dear anon, I'm not sure ''harassment'' is the adjective for that. I'm not a MySpace member and can't read the full original, but if that's as specific as it gets--suggest replacing with a different adjective. Vile I agree with, but ''harassment'' has a more specific meaning. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 09:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
: Urgh! What a bigot :( Well, I guess we know exactly what this guy's position on the whole matter is now - *sigh* - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Bedford, if you really wrote that, I ask you to resign your adminship. I have no opinion right now if such a request is legitimate based on policy, or precedent. I only know you've lost my faith in your ability to act in a reasonable and impartial manner. And if you didn't write it, you need to find out who is impersonating you on myspace, because they're making you look really, really, really bad. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 01:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]], [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]], Kindly! Check this user's biased edits he is biased in some ways and he is purposely removing content from Gurjar related pages and he is wrongly redirecting these pages.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1246992576][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timli_state&diff=prev&oldid=1246981961][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tikola_Kalan&diff=prev&oldid=1246984687] he also wrongly removed source content from Gurjar BLP related page of Vijay Singh with wrong summary [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Singh_Gujjar&diff=prev&oldid=1246992115][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1246023964] and he is probably a [[Rajput]][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=118377638] that's why he is doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism. This user and his fellow editors ( Ratnahastin & Gotitbro) also created a trap just to block me they filed too many reports against my account. See these biased reports [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anujror][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fancy_vib%C4%93s&diff=prev&oldid=1246030995]
:Urgh indeed. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 01:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
.This user also engaged in edit wars on this page See the first fellow editor of this user Gotitbro[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1246023964] wrongly removed sourced content from my new page and redirect. Now this user is trying to conduct an edi war on this page. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1246992576][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1246975010][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratihar_Gurjars&diff=prev&oldid=1247011754] how a new created page by myself is a high jack.? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Tejas pratihar|Tejas pratihar]] ([[User talk:Tejas pratihar#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tejas pratihar|contribs]]) 10:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:202.155, if personal attacks are so bad why is it okay for you to say stuff like "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school"? Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, just because he has an unpopular opinion, such as on the CSA, isn't cause for sanctions. We aren't the thought police. It's only a problem if he's POV pushing or otherwise disruptive. Other than that I agree with the points. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:So after I warned you to stop bringing up editor's caste, you thought it a good idea to come here and say "{{tqi|he is probably a Rajput that's why he is doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism}}"? No one can create a trap for you which forced you to bring up someone's caste. You were free to restrict yourself to discussing their behaviour exclusively rather than saying it's probably because of their caste. Let's be clear, if Ratnahastin or anyone else is causing problems we don't care what their caste is and we barely care why it's the case. The only real reason why someone is doing something matters is it might affect how we approach the issue and what sort of sanction we impose. But someone's caste definitely is not something we would consider. Someone doing something due to casteism is a concern but there needs to be actual evidence of that. Someone's caste isn't evidence that they're engaging in casteism. In fact assuming someone is doing something because of their caste is a form of casteism hence why your behaviour is so problematic. So from where I stand, the only editor who is a problem is you since you keep bringing up the caste of editors <ins>edit:</ins> and blaming it for their behaviour. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC) <ins>11:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)</ins>
::''[[Tu quoque]]'' is not a valid defence. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::It'sI justshould nothave helpfulsaid in'{{!tq|bring theup firstsomeone's place''alleged'' caste}}' above to make personalit attacksclear whileI complainingdo aboutnot someoneknow whoor madecare personalwhat personal attacks. IRatnahastin'ms notcaste sayingis. BedfordIt's attacksirrelevant wereand okay because thea IPproblem didwhether the sameclaimed thing,caste butis hopefullyself-identified weand cancorrect, agreeinconsistent personalwith areself-identification attacksor arethe a bad idea even ifeditor's youcaste donisn't likesomething thethey've personever beingcommented insultedon. --[[User:RividianNil Einne|RividianNil Einne]] ([[User talk:RividianNil Einne|talk]]) 0114:3745, 2622 JulySeptember 20082024 (UTC)
:Just because different editors have noted your problematic edits and IP socking as evidenced at the SPI which you have yourself thankfully linked, does not mean they are "fellow" editors (implying collusion where there is none). Anyhow, like most [[WP:CASTE]] focused editors and disruptors, this user is [[WP:NOTHERE]] and never was. The evidenced [[WP:personal attacks|personal attacks]] based on ethnic identity only bolster those claims.
::::Proof? I did a search on the range. Only two contribs from the entire /16 range I could see this month. One was to a football page. The other to this noticeboard. Though that gadget ''is'' buggy. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 01:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:{{re|Cullen328}} Since I have had similar violent threats from other caste-based sock networks ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#IP sock threatening to rape and murder]]) in the language used here [Hindi], that is indeed a very thinly veiled physical threat in local gangsta slang threatening to 'fix' someone up offline. There is a reason this was issued in a local lect so that it flies under the radar, we should not be tolerating this at all. Protestations of innocence are bunkum when you see the deception practiced here to do all this, tell-tale signs of long socking activity not of a novice; while a CU is ultimately to lead to a block here, we should not be waiting for that. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 11:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Huh? I can't figure out what this comment means. The IP interrupts his quote of Bedford's (supposed) blog to insult him, see the quote "Perhaps an attitude like this is why you're 36, single and still in school". --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Note: Caste-based disruptors/socks like these are a dime a dozen at the [[Hindi Wikipedia]] and [[Simple Wikipedia]] where they have been wrecking havock for the past few years. Past experience at hiwiki and the pattern of [[Hinglish]] edit summaries (along with obvious personal attacks) by the editor here are a particular feature of these networks especially when they are frustrated in their 'efforts'. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 11:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Ah. Didn't catch that. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 01:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Endorse recall. I was going to initiate recall myself, but reneged after realising that, without the category, it would be an excercise in futility. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Bedford was asked about recall in his RfA in April and he answered: "AOR is like a pre-nup, assuming trouble on the horizon when it is vastly hoped there will be no problems, and darkening clouds which should remain bright and fluffy. If editors are uneasy about my nom, I can add myself to it; but, if I am a problem admin, I will be removed by my peers in any event." In the spirit of that answer, he should either resign and stand for reconfirmation or add himself to the recall category. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Endorse Barneca's request for resignation. If Bedford really wrote that blog his position is now untenable with all female editors and admins on Wikipedia and a huge slab of males, too, IMO. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 01:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], I'm not blaming any race (or [[Wikimedia:Policy:Non-discrimination policy|discriminating]]) I mistakenly once used the word [[jealous rajput]] I will never use this word again I do [[WP:APOLOGY|apologie]] I also used this word one time only never repeat this again. And kindly see some biased edit of this editor on the pages I have created and they removed all content and redirected my all pages for no actual reasons. Next time I will not bring any one caste or any kind of personal info i really apologize for my mistake. I'm new I have read some policies of Wikipedia. But kindly help me I'm new some one is really removing all content from my pages after this (Ratnahastin) also giving me many edit warnings!. Such warnings he/she gave will cause block for new user this is unfair!.[[User:Tejas pratihar|Tejas pratihar]] ([[User talk:Tejas pratihar|talk]]) 11:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:I agree - the community needs to take a good look at Bedford's conduct as an admin, especially given the evidence above that this may not be an isolated incident. I unwittingly set off this fiasco last night by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&diff=227779061&oldid=227773891 removing a DYK some users found offensive] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=227781350&oldid=227754973 leaving a polite note with Bedford] since I saw he was the one who'd promoted it... but his immediate reaction was to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bedford&diff=next&oldid=227781350 call me "ridiculous"] and revert my removal. It really disappoints me that he had to escalate this into an edit war and personal attacks - culminating in gross Limbaughesque insults to several female Wikipedians. We expect better from our administrators. '''<font color="#ff9900">[[User:Krimpet|krimpet]]</font><font color="#ff6699">[[User talk:Krimpet|✽]]</font>''' 02:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed. I see that Bedford's RfA three months ago anticipated him using his bit to work on DYKs, and one opposer raised his inflammatory national language at times as an issue. There are (and not just because of this incident) sufficient questions of judgement that lead me to think that the decision to grant adminship, while supported at the time, was not the correct decision and should be reviewed. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 02:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:It's good you're starting to recognise the error of your ways but please don't downplay the severity of your historic problems. By my count you brought up editors being Rajput 9 times in edit summaries <del>than</del> <ins>and then</ins> one time on this very page. You bought up Rajput jealousy/jaelousy in some form in 5 different edit summaries and on this very page made that similar comment about "doing this all for some personal courageous or hateism". This <del>is</del> <ins>isn't</ins> something you mistakenly once used but instead persistently did. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC) <ins>23:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)</ins>
A 24 hour break sounds reasonable, as there is a need to cool down for everyone. Much of this is due to warring between the two sides of political correctness. But notice that I am the one being threatened, that I must think and act like others think and act. At no time did I abuse my role as an admin; I even took a careful take on POV. Therefore, to say my adminship should be revoked is purposeful intimidation; nothing I said was against females in general. I was not the only admin to think it OK, as I did not initially move it to the main template. Had I not woken up prematurely, this brouhaha would not had occurred, and the censorship would have been successful. It was not my article; I just came up with the hook; a hook that no one had problems with on the Template Talk page, and none of those who removed the hook cared whether or not people there saw no problems with it. It was the third hook proposed, in order to use the article, as those who submit articles would like to see them used. An admin posting a hook he devised but had no hand in the creation of the article has been done before, so no foul there (although a future rule against it could be debated).--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="pink">Pray</font>]]</sup> 02:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*This is delicious irony - while I definitely bridle about the c-word and the tw-word, nobody seems to care if a male editor is called a "dick". And we're getting righteously upset about PMS jokes now? Please. Come on, ladies - nobody respects a victim. It's better to give as good as you get. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*:Jokes are supposed to be funny. I see no humour in his posts. Besides, we're using the word "[[m:dick|dick]]" in the metapedian sense, not the common social sense which is commonly suffixed by "head". '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*::Eh, whatever - anything he said, I've heard ten times worse in my workplace. This is political correctness run amok. Talk about a mountain from a molehill. So guys like women in their underwear - everyone knows this from middle school. Yes, he shouldn't have edit-warred about the hook but the reaction is extreme. Bedford, I forgive you - go forth and sin no more. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*:::Do I need to repeat the point of order? This is not about the DYK hook, this is about his reaction. The language he's used would make [[User:Mikegodwin|Mike]] cry. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 02:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*::::I don't think so. If so, then Mike Godwin has lived a pretty sheltered life. Are you talking about the PMS thing? You should hear what women say about PMS amongst themselves. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*:::::[[Godwin's law|Vegetarians are evil because Hitler himself was one]]. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*::::::Huh? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== GoAbbyMallard2024's persistent unsourced edits ==
*For what it's worth, I also endorse Barneca's request for Bedford to resign the tools. I'm not sure Bedford can maintain an admin position when he's using the tools to enforce personal prejudices. It's fine to think differently, that's something I celebrate, but this is a case of being deliberately offensive and antagonistic without purpose. I find that attitude incompatible in the role of an administrator, a role where you deal with all kinds of people. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
*:Did he use the tools? My understanding was that he was just acting as an editor, but maybe I missed something. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*::Edit| warringresult on= aContent fullydispute protectedthat pagedoes whichnot isrise subsequentlyto transcludedANI ontolevel. the Main Page?—[[User:RyulongStar Mississippi|<fontspan colorstyle="bluecolor:#be33ff;">RyūlóngStar</fontspan>]] ([[User talk:RyulongStar Mississippi|<fontspan colorstyle="goldcolor:#ff33da;">竜龙Mississippi</fontspan>]]) 0217:3211, 2622 JulySeptember 20082024 (UTC)
}}
*::He promoted his own hook and then edit warred on an admin protected page to keep it there. I'm more concerned that the position of adminship is one of trust. Trust that the editor will use the tools responsibly and for the right reasons. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 02:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*:::If he was edit-warring on a fully-protected page, then one or more other admins must have also been edit-warring. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*::::Separate admins each time. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 02:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*:::::That doesn't make it any better. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*::::::If you are reverted by different people each time, then you are the one with the problem. There obviously wasn't consensus for the hook otherwise it would never have got taken down. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*Two problems I see with this incident, the first is DYK itself but for another discussion. The problem this discussion is about is that of Bedford's actions. No editor should have to wheel warred to defend a DYK hook, its no big deal if a hook is removed or altered many suggestion dont even get a run. The choice of language is indefensible whether we agree with an action or not its just not acceptable to vehemently accuse any person of extremist views because their physiology or imply that a person has some condition. When other admins have made unfounded uncivil accusations and acted disruptively using the tools(DYK template is an admin only edit protected page, like all main page templates) they have resigned their admin bits or had them removed by ARBCOM. As for Bedfords off Wiki comment '''''there are a lot of cretins''''' then to into a rant on one supposed group, to me that means he also express that other editors as unidentified are also a problem in his view and he's likely to react the same again when people dont accept his actions. To me this totally unacceptable any actions taken as a sysop by Bedford are now questionable as to whether he was acting based on the community decisions or his own personal opinions. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*:It's been established in numerous forums that we don't sanction people on-wiki for what they do off-wiki. That said, if the only thing that's got people upset is the blog post - yeah, it's not that great, but I've seen way worse. I think an apology would be sufficient, speaking for myself. If someone thinks more is necessary, they should take it to ArbCom. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
{{userlinks|GoAbbyMallard2024}} keeps making unsourced edits even after they've been warned numerous times (including twice in the same month). They have not responded to any of the warnings at all. Such edits include the likes of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_High_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1246949946], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_High_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1246949862], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_in_American_television&diff=prev&oldid=1246942593], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_High_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1244700610], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_in_American_television&diff=prev&oldid=1244700290], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_High_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1242085738], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hailey%27s_On_It!&diff=prev&oldid=1240867757], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonic_the_Hedgehog_3_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1240143405], and lastly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Little_Pony:_Make_Your_Mark&diff=prev&oldid=1233416291]. [[User:MissusLunafreya|MissusLunafreya]] ([[User talk:MissusLunafreya|talk]]) 08:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Two edits consist edit warring? Look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&curid=482254&action=history Edit history]. What were the excuses? That it was "demeaning" and akin to FHM? Not that reasoned a reason. Also, note it was [[User:PeterSymonds]] who first placed it on the front page, not me. It should be noted that Ryulong has tried to wipe the history of the hook from both the article's talk page and the Recent Archives page. I think there is a problem with objectivity. If anyone should resign, it is not me. Anything I did was after a consensus of DYK reviewers. I think we need one of those templates used onthe Sri Lanka talk pages here.--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="pink">Pray</font>]]</sup> 02:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:{{u|MissusLunafreya}}, those diffs are to routine content disagreements, not to anything requiring administrators to intervene. Work together with the other editor to gain consensus before escalating to this noticeboard. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 09:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== User condcut:DoctorVadarWho's persistent vandalism ==
:'''You''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=227754718&oldid=227754530 promoted the hook]. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 02:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Next_update&diff=227754456&oldid=227724666 DYK/Next update] says the same story. Peter's only fault was cutpasting. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 02:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::It was reviewed by four editors, one of whome was the original writer of the article, none of whom had problems with the hook (sans one rolling of the eyes). The suggestion was up for a day, the hook was expiring, and as I said before, admins that have suggested alternate hooks have in the past elevated them. If you don't like it, get involved with DYK and let your voices be heard. I feel you did not respect the DYKers.--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="pink">Pray</font>]]</sup> 02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Sceptre's original over reaction to petty comments led to a further overreaction ion by Bedford. I say everyone go have a cigarette and calm down. While I'm the first person to call admin abuse when I see it, nothing was abused here. "Tough" language and civility is abused by people to get rid of their enemies way too much around here. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Yes, exactly - this has escalated beyond all sense. I suggest that if anyone really believes Bedford should be desysopped they take it to dispute resolution. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah... open an RFC if you feel so inclined. ANI isn't really going to solve anything except cause unproductive drama... maybe he'll dig himself in deeper but that seems like a poor reason to keep the thread going. An RFC would actually be headed somewhere other than dramaland. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 03:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Putting the wheel warring aside, honestly, who cares? It's just a hook (one that probably gained many views in the time it was up), and while I personally didn't see a reason to remove it, edit-warring to keep it on also makes no sense. This whole thing really reeks of something that has escalated far, far too much. The hooks have come and gone, that's over. I'm disappointed my pretty much all sides in this wheel war, of course some more than others. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 03:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Point of order, point of order, point of order. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Aday&diff=prev&oldid=1246998867] on [[Amanda Aday]]: {{tq|She is a fat pig in this photo oink, oink}}
Bedford's actions may have been very wrong today, but he does bring up a good point above. The hooks stay at [[T:TDYK]] for several days. If there were any concerns then why not actually check that page for yourselves to see if anything offends you? This way it saves the drama of removing and adding hooks. I mean, DYK is a hard-ass job for no respect as it is, with people complaining abotu things that could be solved if they spent 5 minutes participating there. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 03:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Moral of the story: the most important item at an RfA is Question #3. If a candidate gives a [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bedford|vague, evasive, or essentially meaningless answer to this question]], don't support their candidacy. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 03:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Aday&diff=prev&oldid=1246998972] on [[Amanda Aday]]: adds {{tq|Fat Yeti}} as the name of the role of this same actress
:Bedford was the one who created this drama. Hooks get moved around and thrown back in all the time. It was his ''behaviour'' and the edit warring that was wrong. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Not on an active DYK unless there's something really wrong with the hook. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 03:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Which there was! Which is why it was removed in the first place. [[User:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="FF0066">Seraphim&hearts;</font>]][[User_talk:Seraphim Whipp|<font color="black">Whipp</font>]] 03:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, but was it bad enough to be re-reverted as many times as it was? I'm not getting into that, that's a question for elsewhere. My point at 3:15 stands though as my main one. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* Persistent disruptive edits changing birthdays with no sources for no discernible legitimate reason [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearl_Aday&diff=prev&oldid=1246998574 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%98L%C3%98&diff=prev&oldid=1245327484 here].
*I am amazed that so many people are not getting this. Forget the hook. Opinions about the hook are '''debatable''' and its appropriateness on the Main Page is a '''subjective call'''. When there is a dispute over something '''debatable''' and you find the other people making a different '''subjective call''' than you would prefer . . . You do not react by speculating on the motives the editors you disagree with. You do not label them with derogatory terms. You do not personalize the dispute. You comment on content that is in dispute, attract a wider audience, and seek consensus. This is the issue; not the debatable point of whether that hook was a desirable item for the Main Page. The behavior displayed after the hook was disputed in real issue here. Some people will agree that the hook is desirable, some will not and some won't care either way. But, who can say that they find Bedford reaction to the dispute acceptable and on what basis do they believe it to be so? I think that inappropriateness of his reaction should be widely agreed on. The only reason we are still here is not because Bedford got upset and said what he should not have, but because he believes what he said was not problematic. Now is the part where the admin community says "Hold up. X,Y, and Z was out of line." and then Bedford stops claiming he has done nothing wrong or at least stops posting about it. And we all go our separate ways either hopeful that he has learned a lesson here and this discussion never need be re-visited again at least satisfied that a unified voice reaffirmed how admins are expected to behave. Or I suppose you can all ignore the real issue here talk about how you liked or didn't mind the hook and the real issue will fester into a premature RfC. Bedford is the only loser in the latter scenario but obviously not many people here care to help guide him out of the hole he has dug himself into. At least not when is a controversial issue to debate. Seriously you all should ask yourselves: Have I actually tried to imagine a resolution to the problem brought here?--<i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i> 04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
* Disruptive editing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binge_(streaming_service)&diff=prev&oldid=1193353148 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seth_Weintraub&diff=prev&oldid=1231803332 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter&diff=prev&oldid=1118656882 here.]
 
[[User talk:DoctorVadarWho]] has received at least seven warnings about non-constructive edits and/or vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoctorVadarWho&diff=prev&oldid=679540683 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoctorVadarWho&diff=prev&oldid=766535236 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoctorVadarWho&diff=prev&oldid=768861995 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoctorVadarWho&diff=prev&oldid=844343283 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoctorVadarWho&diff=prev&oldid=880023862 here], including two level 4 warnings [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoctorVadarWho&diff=prev&oldid=873744571#December_2018 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoctorVadarWho&diff=prev&oldid=870893231 here].
Interesting timing: as the female editor who recently created [[Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress|this article]] and got it through DYK, and who is currently running [[Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Chicks with guns|this peer review request]], no one can accuse me of being too uptight. Bedford, your action at DYK crossed the line, and your statements since then have been worse. All editors should be able to communicate with administrators without worry that the sysop would screen their words through a filter of perception about the editor's race, color, creed, ''gender'' or other external factor. The name for such filters is ''bigotry'' and that is incompatible with Wikipedia administratorship. I read this thread hoping a well-meaning misunderstanding had taken place, but your own words condemn you more clearly with each iteration. I respectfully request that you resign the tools, and if you refuse I will endorse every step toward their involuntary removal. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 08:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
: I have to '''endorse''' Durova's request here. We have absolutely no room for bigotry within the admin community and an admin who has issues with (arguably) 50% of the population is not going to approach matters dispassionately, IMO - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 08:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Need I say more? [[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]] ([[User talk:Kire1975|talk]]) 09:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
== Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center, yet again ==
:I have indefinitely blocked DoctorVadarWho for egregious BLP policy violations and disruptive editing. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Persistent MoS violation and refusal to explain ==
That IP address [[User:128.197.130.249]] who just kept mass-adding a sentence to a lot of biographies claiming that that person's papers were at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center was blocked after attempts to get him/her to stop and discuss it has gone back to just readding them all again after the block expired. Still no response on the talk page. I don't know if this is just a bot or a stubborn person ignoring us or a person who somehow doesn't see the notice that there's a message waiting for them. They may need stronger blocking, and a roll back of edits or something. Most of all some sort of two way communication to get them to understand why this isn't appropriate would be nice. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 19:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:I've reverted the current edits -- I believe the old ones have already been reverted by various editors.<p>I've had some luck in the past, when some BU IPs were vandalizing my user page, in contacting the SysOp at BU. They never responded, but the vandalism stopped. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
{{userlinks|Croystron}}
I am an administrator in the office in question, and this controversy has just been brought to my attention. Would someone please direct me on how to initiate the process for opening a dialogue on these problems and concerns? Thank you. [[User:Sdnoel|Sdnoel]] ([[User talk:Sdnoel|talk]]) 19:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
This editor has brought MoS problems to an awful lot of film/television-related articles and never explained their edits (see {{diff||1246919268|1217162938|this}}, {{diff||1246881223|1241401512|this}}, and {{diff||1246078627|1242458281|this}}). They continued disrupting Wikipedia even though they had been warned about these multiple times (see {{diff||prev|1181059580|this}}, {{diff||prev|1182156288|this}}, {{diff||prev|1187092649|this}}, {{diff||prev|1214872559|this}}, {{diff||prev|1216086678|this}}, {{diff||prev|1237732123|this}}, and {{diff||1239535329|1237732123|this}}). [[User:Thedarkknightli|Thedarkknightli]] ([[User talk:Thedarkknightli|talk]]) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:You should probably look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#.22Howard_Gotlieb_Archival_Research_Center.22__again this] for beginners. [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::And [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive441#Special:Contributions.2F128.197.130.145 this] [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Hi @[[User:Quaerens-veritatem|Quaerens-veritatem]] and @[[User:Nicholas0|Nicholas0]], could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! [[User:Thedarkknightli|Thedarkknightli]] ([[User talk:Thedarkknightli|talk]]) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
== A public apology for my stupidity 3 years ago... ==
 
== Morph ==
I would like to make a public apology for my stupidity 3 years ago, when I was logged in as [[User:The Bad Tax Man]]. I did sock a bit, with some sockpuppets tagged by Golbez, but now I've grown up and realized my stupidity. I was only 19 back then and in uni, but now I've grown up. I'm posting this from a public PC right now because I'm on the move. Sorry if I'm evading my indefinite block, but I want to apologise if I upset everyone. I was stupid, but now I've moved on. --[[Special:Contributions/217.36.218.31|217.36.218.31]] ([[User talk:217.36.218.31|talk]]) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Nobody's going to string you up for evading a block if you're making a legitimate attempt to reconcile things. If you want to (positively) contribute, you can post an <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> template at [[User talk:The Bad Tax Man]], with a link here. Cheers, <b><font color="FF6600">[[User:Caknuck|caknuck]]</font> <sub><font color="black">[[User talk:Caknuck|°]]</font></sub> <font color="FF6600">is back from his wikisiesta</font></b> 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
I have tried the talk page, I pointed out these exact points & an admin protected it. That’s why I’m here. [[Special:Contributions/72.92.249.71|72.92.249.71]] ([[User talk:72.92.249.71|talk]]) 13:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
== [[User:Sehend1]] ==
* You were edit-warring and reverted five times, so an admin protected it. That's not unusual. Indeed, they could simply have blocked you. (For everyone else, the article is [[Kevin Sydney]] and these events were two weeks ago). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:: Ok, but I was the one who was right? Have you looked at the sources? That say nothing other than fans WANT him to be non-binary? Why was MY edit the one reversed? When I was doing the right thing? Then the page protected to continue to spread false info? How is that ok? Not sure where else to ask these questions, the talk page is getting me nowhere as it’s the admin Elli who is protecting the page & reversing my edits, even though once again, the non binary thing is unsubstantiated. [[Special:Contributions/72.92.249.71|72.92.249.71]] ([[User talk:72.92.249.71|talk]]) 13:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
{{user|Sehend1}}
:::ANI is for behaviour problems of users, not content disputes. Resolution of content disputes is [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|thataway, Mac.]]
:::{{line break}}
:::You might also want to read [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|this page]] before you dig yourself a hole. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 13:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::AFAICT, your talk page attempts until just recently consisted of 2 edit requests. Edit requests are not a way to initiate discussion. Instead they are intended to request simple undisputed changes that either already have consensus or where the consensus is obvious that you could justifiable make were it not for the protection. Clearly this isn't the case here since it seems likely the only reason you were using the talk page was because your edit warring was stopped by the semi protection. Your most recent comment is the first time you've at least tried to actually discuss the dispute. So no, you never tried the talk page until now. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Suspicious activity from Supyovalk - possible compromised account ==
I recently blocked Sehend1 for a week for his endless battleground-style edit warring without discussion. You will notice from looking at his contributions that 90% of his edits are reverts, while he has only made a total of three comments to a talk page (ever). I initially warned him but he responded by continuing his reverting campaign and making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sehend1&diff=prev&oldid=227783040 personal attacks] on his talk page in which he said "Some user worried why i monitor Azerbaijani-related articles and revert destructive changes specially two enemies of Azeris: Kurds whom without knowing anything about history of Azerbaijan and Atropatane tries to force people that everywhere is Kurdistan." I explained to him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sehend1&diff=prev&oldid=227795272 here] that he should read up on several of Wikipedia's policies most notably [[WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND]]. Instead, he left a message on my talk page with an IP titlted "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khoikhoi&diff=227847954&oldid=227757933 KhoiKhoi is a Kurd]", in which he said:
{{atop
| result = Account is not compromised, rest of this does not require ANI. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
 
{{userlinks|Supyovalk}}
<blockquote>I don't say this story to you as i am sure you are brain washed kurd and will not affect you. i am saying this to open mind users.
you can call me whatever you like, editing war, POV etc.
simply i don't care. if you have power to block one IP i will come with another one. I am very very serious to defend Azerbaijan in virtual war started by Kurds and Persians againt Azeris and some Europeans or Americans are interested to slightly help them, but who cares from Azeris, we are very strong people with very high self confidence.</blockquote>
 
This account was created in May 2020 and for four years made sporadic edits to articles related to mathematics. Then, a couple months ago, started making rapid "assessments" to articles - and by rapid, I mean 7 or 8 per minute, and over 10,000 total edits in that time. After I noticed this editing pattern, I left a notice on the user's talk page, letting them know that spending less than 10 seconds an article is insufficient (especially for an inexperienced editor) and asking them to stop.
In his message to me, he essentially promised to continue his reverting campaign at all costs. Should we tolerate this type of behavior at Wikipedia? I'm wondering if this warrants and indefinite block, as he clearly isn't here to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. What do others think? <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 20:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
The edits did stop - but whoever is behind them disappeared completely. It almost looked like gaming extended-confirmed access, but blowing that far past 500 edits doesn't make sense in that respect. However, the sudden shift in editing pattern and disappearance upon being questioned makes me wonder if the account was compromised - something seems off here.
:I seem to recall some sort of arbitration-committee restriction on articles in this area? That might be a first step. If it continues, I'd absolutely Concur with a block. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Claims]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Evidence]] </small> 20:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Spot-checking some of the "assessments" they made, some are probably right, others are wrong. I don't know if a mass revert is possible or feasible in this case (but it'd be easier than manually verifying them all). --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 14:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement]]. However, I don't know whether the remedies apply only to the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles or if they apply to all articles in the general area (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq (Kurdistan), Iran, Georgia, southern Caucasus). —'''[[User:Kurykh|<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh</font>]]''' 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:hey, it's supyovalk speaking.
:::I think it initially included a much broader range of topics, but this was later amended. I could be wrong however. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2&diff=199747241&oldid=199461154 this] for example. The user in question (Sehend1) has been mainly edit warring in Iran-related articles, so I don't think it is covered in this case AFAIK. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 21:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:So to start, no this account is not comprimised, nor I have disappeared or was supsended, just having less edit usage due to not prefering not to rate.
:So a couple months ago I started to go on a spree of rating pages to help the wikipedia. However, I was using the widespread Rater, and using a strategy to swiftly rate pages, eventually replacing that with a Java selenium auto-rater I built.
:But I thought its supplied ORES rating, modified with some bias system I made to ensure it's lowballing, is good enough rating measurement. after weeks of not getting noted and even being thanked for some of the edits, Sable232 left a message explaining it was wrong to rate pages without proper observing of the page's content, and I responded accordingly, noting the problems. (which is weirdly absent now from my talk page. Don't sure what happened to it) Then I just stopped rating pages, due to realizing I wasn't a sufficient rater. And so my editing activity stopped.
:Now for the mass revert, I wouldn't mind if you revert all of them, as I now agree that most of them weren't fair but there's the considering that some them, especially the low-end ones that had a very high ORES confidence, that are indeed fair.
:So here's my offering for a possible mass revert: Revert every rating of mine that is C or higher. that way it will ensure all the very risky and half-hearted assessments are reverted while keeping the low-end pages in a semi-correct to correct state.
:But if you think that's not doable task, I understand if a mass revert is in order. and I will refrain from haphazardly rating Wikipedia pages from now on. [[User:Supyovalk|Supyovalk]] ([[User talk:Supyovalk|talk]]) 15:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
::Thanks for the explanation. While stub articles can be easy to assess, higher levels require more attention. When I assess or reassess articles, I often find easily-resolved issues that I can take care of at the same time. I find it is generally a methodical process, not a fast one. --[[User:Sable232|Sable232]] ([[User talk:Sable232|talk]]) 16:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Aside from the comment, it looks like I'm going to have to reset Sehend's block as he's [[Special:Contributions/128.220.159.9|currently evading it]]. Sigh. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Poor grammar from {{u|Icarus58}} ==
== [[Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2]] ==
{{atop
| result = Grammar is not an issue for ANI. SPI is thataway if there's merit to the allegations from the reported user. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
 
I wonder if anyone would care to step in and examine [[Special:Contributions/FalconPunch2]]? The user has been involved in edit wars in the fairly recent past, but no warnings or actions were taken. At this point, all of his additions have been reverted as simply [[WP:OR]] or not [[WP:V]]. I've placed a note on the users talk page, and need to step back, and unfortunately there's no other place for me to bring this up. The 3RR notice board won't work, since I'm not risking an edit war myself, so we won't even get to that point. Advice? Intervention? [[User:Yngvarr|Yngvarr]] [[User talk:Yngvarr|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/Yngvarr|(c)]] 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
{{u|Icarus58}} is another user I have observed on English Wikipedia whose grammar and/or spelling is below the standards expected of contributors:
Notify him of this ANi. [[User:Beamathan|Beam]] 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Glenn23-408649&curid=77812298&diff=1247038633&oldid=1247019968] - I convinced you all your assumptions are true, but be careful for my word: {{highlight|If you will violated the rules}} under the WP:DAB, Manual of Styles in Linking, Do's and Don'ts in Redirects and other main articles and piping policy; {{highlight|you will report from the interventions against vandalism}} if you continue to remove the specific wikilinks without any excuses. Any subsequent edits (as well as years in Philippine Television articles) {{highlight|will reverted manually}}. Thank you.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_in_Philippine_television&diff=prev&oldid=1247037055] - So, please stop and you'll receive a warning because those removal specific wikilinks {{highlight|are not purpose of the streamline of readers}} and {{highlight|it does not common sense}}.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_in_Philippine_television&diff=prev&oldid=1246992575] - Possible {{highlight|suck puppet}} from AaronFresco.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_21&diff=prev&oldid=1246872254] - However, {{highlight|Crising is only Philippine name from PAG-ASA}}, it seems {{highlight|that should be delete as no longer cheap redirects}}, {{highlight|altough}} they are same designation but different classification from PAG-ASA and JTWC.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icarus58&diff=prev&oldid=1245914382] - Unfortunately, some tropical cyclone articles in typhoon names are considered as repeatable in year descriptions {{highlight|to make it easier find}} (especially the main topic) and {{highlight|should be keep it neutral}}. In general terms, {{highlight|those year descriptions are common senses and not be superfluous}}. As you did it at Typhoon Ewiniar (2024) by using scripts, which is already reverted earlier; but you need to follow the wiki guidelines as neutral point of view. Hope you'll understand for my reasons to know what is right and wrong actions.
 
Based on the highlighted text demonstrating grammatical errors, I firmly believe that Icarus58's grasp of the English language is not good enough to edit English Wikipedia. Thoughts? [[User:The Grand Delusion|<span style="color:#6600ff;">The</span> <span style="color:#6666ff;">Grand</span> <span style="color:#6699ff;">Delusion</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:The Grand Delusion|Send a message]])</sup> 14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:That grammar is quite subpar, but I think it's only a problem if [[User:Icarus58|Icarus58]] contributes significant chunks to articles and/or routinely interacts with newer editors, who might be confused by Icarus58's explanations or arguments. '''''<sub>[[User talk:ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">W</span>]]</sub>[[User:ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">ADroughtOfVowels</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">P</span>]]</sup>''''' 15:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq| Possible suck puppet from AaronFresco.}} Aaand has Icarus got anything to prove that? SPI is a thing, [[WP:ASPERSIONS]], and all that. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 19:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== A Case for retrial on the RC Majumdar article ==
== Plaintiff in lawsuit against Disney ==
{{atop|result=Content dispute, please work towards a consensus at [[Talk:R. C. Majumdar]], not here, with recourse to [[WP:DR|dispute resolution procedures]] if discussion stalls. There appears to have been minimal discussion on said talk page thus far, with comments only from Normstahlie, articulating a perspective that appears to somewhat distinct from both that of the OP of this thread and Ratnahastin, the main subject of this complaint. Behavioral concerns relating to this dispute have already been raised in the section [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#NOTHERE_editor]] and can continue there; there's no reason to have a separate parallel discussion at ANI. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 14:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)}}
On the page for the Indian Historian RC Majumdar, the third line reads that [[RC Majumdar]] promoted Hindu Nationalist communal interpretation of history. The overwhelming consensus among academics such as Romilla Thapar is that he was NOT a communal historian but part of the Nationalist school of historiography. I had the sources cited for the same claim but were replaced multple time with sources of less relevance and credibility by Ratnahastin (the wikipedia user) on 21 September 2024 it was put that RC Majumdar was a nationalist historiographer by [[Normstahlie]] but was reverted back by [[Someguywhosbored]] and extension protection added by [[Daniel Case]]. I did try to build consensus with Ratnahastin via talk that we add a legacy section which will allow both his critics and appreciaters view to be heard but he refused to engage with me on any level. Wikipedia is the first thing which pops up when one searches RC Majumdar and by calling Him a Hindu Nationalist it is tarnishing his legacy, THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF ACADEMICS FROM ALL SCHOOLS OF HISTORY believe that he was NOT promoting Hindu NAtionalist views, their authority on it has been ignored for an ideological few. [[User:Nothingbutthetruth2006|Nothingbutthetruth2006]] ([[User talk:Nothingbutthetruth2006|talk]]) 14:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Uncivil comments by AssieBassie000 ==
{{resolved|1=<s>Final warning issued. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|<b><font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb<font color="#00EEFF">e</font>a</font></font>n</font>~</font><font color="#FF3333">H.</font><font color="#FFCC00">Q.</font></b>]] 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)</s> Final warning ignored; blocked for disruption. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}}
New user {{User|Disneysuit}} appears to be Royce Mathew, the [http://www.wesh.com/news/4154857/detail.html plaintiff in a lawsuit against Disney over the origins of the ''Pirates of the Caribbean'' films]. All of Disneysuit's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Disneysuit first-day edits] appear designed to blanket Wikipedia articles with information about the suit and its targets. While the suit has attracted some media attention, Mathew's tactics and Wikipedia edits suggest he's a gadfly who wants to try the case in the media and is unwilling to follow the encyclopedia's guidelines and policies. Disneysuit also created an autobiography of (surprise!) [[Royce Mathew]] that was speedily deleted, then created it again with similar content at [[Royce mathew]]. There's no evidence that this user understands concerns raised about [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:AUTOBIO]], among others. He's now posting rants that include "I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE A SUPERVISOR" when his edits and behavior are challenged. &#151;[[User:Whoville|Whoville]] ([[User talk:Whoville|talk]]) 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:If all his edits so far have been disruptive, give him a stern final warning saying "Look, we're not here to promote any side or lawsuit. Stop it or else you WILL be blocked." Seriously, that talk page just reads like a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because his daddy took away his [[Bill Engvall|I.G. Joe]]. I also deleted another page he created ([[User talk:BlackPearl14/Desk]]) as an attack page. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::Already done. We'll see if he continues. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::I've also issued a warning of my own warning him that if he keeps up assuming bad faith or trying to push the lawsuit onto us, he'll be blocked, though I'm not sure if he'll heed it. I tried to be as outright and civil as I could. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::::Well, then we are done here? one more COI breaching edit and we send this account to Davy Jones' Locker. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|<b><font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb<font color="#00EEFF">e</font>a</font></font>n</font>~</font><font color="#FF3333">H.</font><font color="#FFCC00">Q.</font></b>]] 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Davy Jones' Locker? Why not the [[Kingdom Hearts II|World that Never Was?]] -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 00:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I would like to thank you for removing that page. I wrote that page to showcase my works and then he came along and vandalised it. I apologized already to him for being rude, but I think that about cuts it. He called me "corrupted" and "meritless" and then attacked me verbally. I am very, very hurt and shocked by this sort of behaviour. This man is an adult and yet he cannot see reason. I agree with you: Davy Jones's Locker is the best solution :) [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >Aparna</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|<sup><font color="#667722">BlackPearl14</font></sup>]] 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
This {{user|AssieBassie000 }} was recently reported for adding unsourced information but the thread was archived with no further action. Now they are using uncivil edit summaries. See this {{diff|Vistara|1246998868|1246979023}} diff. --'''[[User:Jetstreamer|Jetstreamer]]'''&nbsp;''{{sup|[[User talk:Jetstreamer#top|Talk]]}}'' 15:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
You have hypocritical standards. You list other artists and lawsuits etc.., yet you pick and choose only the facts that favor a business notably the Walt disney Company ,and then you make you issues about lower case "m" and make false claims. Clearly you justify a concocted reason to shut down this account. I am notifying that you are in breach of your company/business guidelines. I am seeking to file formal complaints. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Disneysuit|Disneysuit]] ([[User talk:Disneysuit|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Disneysuit|contribs]]) 00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:BTW, the user keeps making unsourced edits {{diff|Air_India|1247000561|1246724008}}. Anybody taking this seriously?--'''[[User:Jetstreamer|Jetstreamer]]'''&nbsp;''{{sup|[[User talk:Jetstreamer#top|Talk]]}}'' 15:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:This smells like a [[WP:NLT|legal threat]]. Blocking indef. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 00:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:That is quite uncivil, but I am more concerned by the user's ''lack'' of edit summaries even on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_Transat&diff=prev&oldid=1247020780 major] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm_Arlanda_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1246168035 edits](!) and the unsourced edits.
::He's requesting an unblock and a meeting with Wikipedia's "owner". -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 00:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:(As a side note, I think you should add more diffs to your reports, as only one diff per claim makes it difficult to evaluate whether these are chronic problems.) '''''<sub>[[User talk:ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">W</span>]]</sub>[[User:ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">ADroughtOfVowels</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">P</span>]]</sup>''''' 16:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::He's also claimed false things at me such as that I speak with a small group of editors who work alongside me and accept my every move. I do not. I was just telling him that it isn't write to write something in his own POV and then expect us to accept it. I understand if I get blocked, and I accept it, but I wish he would stop hurting my feelings so much. I am a mature adult and I am really quite astonished to see this sort of behaviour. And Jeske: thank you for deleting that page for me. I don't want to have to tread upon it again. [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >Aparna</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|<sup><font color="#667722">BlackPearl14</font></sup>]] 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Null persp, Aparna. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Denied and page protected. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm a bit thickheaded: what does null persp mean? Null perspective? On what? I'm sorry if I'm only adding fuel to the fire :( [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >Aparna</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|<sup><font color="#667722">BlackPearl14</font></sup>]] 00:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::You know, [[wikt:no|null]] [[Sweat|perspiration]]. No sweat. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Gotcha - thanks! :) [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >Aparna</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|<sup><font color="#667722">BlackPearl14</font></sup>]] 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::He sent me a legal threat thru the email system. As such, I've also revoked his email privileges. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::: The uncivil edit summary is block worthy, and the unsourced edits and lack of communication is also concerning. I'm not sure this rises to the level of an indefinite block though. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 16:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
If anyone gets tired of this I am ready to take up the hand holding. Leave me a message if needed. --[[User:Mboverload|mboverload]][[User_talk:mboverload|<font color="red">@</font>]] 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Also of note that I previously didn't mention:
:I don't think we need to worry any more about him unless he comes back as another user and continues the behavior that led to his block (i.e. vague legal threats, accusations of cooperating with Disney to suppress info on his lawsuit, and repeated assumptions of bad faith on those who revert his peacockery). He's blocked, his talk page is protected, and his email privileges have been revoked. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::* The editor has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAssieBassie000&diff=1246457298&oldid=1246198391 refactored] the second most recent ANI notice, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAssieBassie000&diff=1246845215&oldid=1246521677 even after] it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAssieBassie000&diff=1246521677&oldid=1246457298 reverted with the edit summary {{tq|"Do not modify other's comments"}}].
::::* They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=AssieBassie000&namespace=1&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 haven't] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=AssieBassie000&namespace=3&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 once] used any talk page other than their own, and then only to post [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AssieBassie000&diff=prev&oldid=1243398970 one response] as well as the refactorings above.
::::'''''<sub>[[User talk:ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">W</span>]]</sub>[[User:ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">ADroughtOfVowels</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">P</span>]]</sup>''''' 16:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::: I am inclined to block them for a week, and make it clear if problems continue they will be blocked indefinitely. But I'll wait for more opinions. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 17:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree with you, {{u|PhilKnight}}. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks. I have now blocked them. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|PhilKnight}} I'm fairly certain they're a sock of [[User:Stricklunk880]] as their editing pattern is identical. This is a long term airport disrupting sock puppeet editor I believe. See [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=AssieBassie000&users=Stricklunk880&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki interaction history]. Changing of small tagging (that shouldn't be there in the first place), overlinking and deleting native names from the article bodies. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 13:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::: Checkuser confirms the sock puppetry. Indefinite block now. Thanks. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 13:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Many thanks. And gives me more confidence to block these accounts when I see them now. There are a few sock accounts that persistently disrupt airport articles. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 13:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 89.125.129.68 ==
== Grawp vandalising Commons ==
{{atop
| result = IP has been blocked. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 21:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
 
{{userlinks|89.125.129.68}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings. IP was previously blocked on July 28th for a month, behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Marvel Studios Animation|prev|1247013408|1}} (content added not in pre-existing source), {{diff|The Big Knights|prev|1246915867|2}}, {{diff|The Big Knights|prev|1244514587|3}}, {{diff|The Big Knights|prev|1243648033|4}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 15:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Lundeunge.jpg - apparently a vandalised template, though I'm having trouble working out where the vandalism has been done. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Never mind, it seems to have been fixed now. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* I have blocked the IP for a year. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::This is a persistent and consistent vandalism; I've seen it maybe half-a-dozen times in the month or so I've been patrolling. is it the same vandal? also, would it be possible to write a bot to watch for it and snip it (and the IP that posts it) as soon as it pops in? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64, again ==
:::I'm starting to suspect that some of these moves are being done by copycats, some are targeting specific targets more than once, Grawp constantly jumps to different topics. - [[User:Caribbean H.Q.|<b><font color="#0000DD"><font color="#0066FF">Ca<font color="#0099FF">ri<font color="#00CCFF">bb<font color="#00EEFF">e</font>a</font></font>n</font>~</font><font color="#FF3333">H.</font><font color="#FFCC00">Q.</font></b>]] 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = Reported IP & underlying 64 have been blocked. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 21:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
 
{{userlinks|2600:480A:4A72:6000:0:0:0:0/64}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, hasn't responded to warnings, /64 was previously blocked on August 31st for 72h, then for 2 weeks on September 7th as a result of [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#Persistent_addition_of_unsourced_content_by_2600%3A480A%3A4A72%3A6000%3A0%3A0%3A0%3A0%2F64|this previous ANI report]], behaviour continued after block expired. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|Love in Us All|prev|1247015515|1}}, {{diff|Cosmic Peekaboo|prev|1246904221|2}}, {{diff|...Sing for Very Important People|prev|1246903823|3}}, {{diff|Stars/Time/Bubbles/Love|prev|1246903672|4}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 16:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::::well, the Grawp thing usually aims at templates (which would limit its range of targets), and it's a very elaborate bit of code, so it must be pre-fab and might be passed around between different vandals... it would be nice if we had some data on how often and where it pops up, and maybe from where, to see if we can localize the region it comes from. any admins bored enough to want to do the grunt work? :-D --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 04:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
* I have blocked the /64 range for 3 months. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 16:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
== [[User:William M. Connolley]] and [[Lawrence Solomon]] ==
{{abot}}
 
== Apparent phishing by Zayn Hesham ==
*{{la|Lawrence Solomon}}
*{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}}
 
All of [[User:Zayn Hesham]]'s [[Special:Contributions/Zayn Hesham|edits]] are requests on random users' talk pages (including mine) ostensibly to ask for help but then asking for their email addresses. Looks phishy. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 07:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
[[Lawrence Solomon]] has criticized, in the press, the actions of [[User:William M. Connolley]] in regards to articles on the subject of [[global warming]].[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx][http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=] (The argument has echoed to other places, including the media blog of the American [[CBS]] network. <s>Connelley</s> Connolley has nonetheless continued to edit the biographical article on Solomon, despite being asked to leave it to others because of the obvious conflict of interest.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&oldid=227920367#Suggestion_re_Lawrence_Solomon] Request outside opinions. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' - apparently a similar issue regarding this user has been discussed here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_6#William_M._Connolley_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_deleted_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29 before]. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
: You can't spell my name. Have another go [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Another notable aspect about them is that they're the exact same. I do agree that they look phishy (and fishy). '''''<sub>[[User talk:ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">W</span>]]</sub>[[User:ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">ADroughtOfVowels</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/ADroughtOfVowels|<span style="color:black">P</span>]]</sup>''''' 09:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
<undent>I've moved the conversation here due to the possibility of damage to Wikipedia's reputation. We don't need overt battles with the press over ownership of critics' articles by the Wikipedians they are criticizing. I'm just looking for consensus that WMC shouldn't be the person editing Solomon's article. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Zayn Hesham has Wikipedia email enabled, so there's not even any need for them to ask for others' email addresses. I've explained this on their page. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 09:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC).
:I've checked the last few edits (and there are only a few in the last several weeks), and see no sign of problematic editing. In particular, with such a low number of edits the claim of "ownership" is absurd. Moreover, if we allow any journalist to simply get rid of critical voices on Wikipedia by writing an article on the critics, we will run into problems with [[WP:NPOV]] immediately. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:By xwiki tracing, I'll note that [[:User:زين هشام]] is another account of theirs, and wikidata admins who look at the history of [[:wikidata:Q119790860]] might be able to find an IP that editor was also using for self-promotion. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 14:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::Um, doesn't this open up the possibility of people who have articles about them being able to control, to a certain extent, who edits the article? Mr. X doesn't like what Editor Y has written about him, and would prefer Editor Z, so he criticizes Editor Y to the press and all of a sudden Editor Z's input is no longer balanced by Editor Y. Why Wikipedia want to hand over that kind of influence? [[User:Ed Fitzgerald|'''Ed Fitzgerald''' (unfutz)]] <b><small><sup>([[User talk:Ed Fitzgerald|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ed Fitzgerald|cont]])</sup></small></b> 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZayn_Hesham&diff=1247226017&oldid=1247225625 This comment] doesn't bode well. I'm trying to figure out of it rises to the level of a personal attack or not. Either way it doesn't suggest they'll be a productive member of the community. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 14:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The edits that Connolley has made to that article so far seem fair and uncontroversial. As long as it stays that way there shouldn't be much of a problem. Lawrence Solomon may think differently about it, but that's up to him. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Considering they said they’re [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zayn_Hesham&diff=prev&oldid=1247210452 here to promote], I’d advise [[WP:NOTHERE]] be invoked. I find this to also be supported by what they were trying to do with their user page, on their old account that DMacks sniffed up. ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:زين_هشام&oldid=1193287837]) {{tq| with a little information and not too much}} Sounds to me like they know the harm that can occur on having an article on [[WP:YOURSELF]], and would whitewash. That’s [[WP:OWN]] trouble waiting to happen. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::From [[WP:NPA]]: {{tqq| Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.}} I think they were trying to disparage you (say you were of little worth) with {{tqq| I don't see you and you had the honor of talking to me}}. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 15:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::Oh, yes, I see that on Arabic Wikipedia, under both accounts the user page content has been removed and warnings about inappropriate user page use appear on their talk page. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 16:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*Blocked as NOTHERE.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== IP persistantly readding unsourced material at [[Battle of Trafalgar]] ==
'''Comment''' - By way of full disclosure I will point out up front that WMC and I have had our differences of opinion in the past which had become heated. Given that, I would merely point out the following:
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_Solomon&diff=227912155&oldid=227055705] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_Solomon&diff=227920454&oldid=227916158] have already been reverted, the first by me and the second by [[User:Oren0]].
* My reversion of his first edit merely brought the [[Lawrence Solomon]] article into conformance with the [[The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud]] article where we had extensive discussion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Deniers:_The_world-renowned_scientists_who_stood_up_against_global_warming_hysteria%2C_political_persecution%2C_and_fraud#.22...Even_though_some_of_them_are_not_scientists....22], and had already worked out a consensus wording, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Deniers:_The_world-renowned_scientists_who_stood_up_against_global_warming_hysteria%2C_political_persecution%2C_and_fraud&diff=227512143&oldid=227333243].
* WMC's response was to try and start up the same discussion in the [[Lawrence Solomon]] article on the same issue as he had in the deniers article.
* I would hope that WMC would see fit to refrain from editing either of the above two articles given the criticism he has received in the press on this very topic, i.e. using the BLPs of his enemies as a forum. I would submit that whether or not that is even true, if he wishes to avoid even the hint of impropriety this particular BLP would be one to avoid for what should be obvious reasons, lest he prove that criticism correct.
* As you are all aware WMC has many friends and there are many editors who share his views in these areas. Those editors will be more than capable of defending those viewpoints without the obvious entanglements that WMC faces or the potential damage that might result to Wikipedia.
Take these observations for what they are worth and decide for yourself whether WMC is being controversial in his editing of these articles and whether he has a [[WP:COI]] in this case. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
: Having just reviewed [[WP:COI]] in some detail, the opening sentence provides a reasonable summary: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." So, if we are to decide whether a [[WP:COI]] exists in this case the first question to answer would be, ''does WMC have any self interests with respect to editing the BLP for Solomon and/or The Deniers?'' I think that the allegation of [[WP:COI]] here boils done to the following:
:# Lawrence Solomon, rightly or wrongly, has publicly written about the conduct of WMC here at Wikipedia in a strongly negative manner, see [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx].
:# It is, therefore, in WMC's own self-interest for Lawrence Solomon and his works to be discredited because this will cast doubt on his accusations regarding WMC.
:# WMC has on several occasions made disparaging remarks regarding Lawrence Solomon's credibility here on wikipedia, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Singer&diff=221744966&oldid=221693086], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=224449988&oldid=224447032], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=224660961&oldid=224638629], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=224664073&oldid=224661462] as well as on his personal blog, see [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/07/recycled_sht_from_solomon.php] and [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/06/who_is_lawrence_solomon_and_wh.php].
: I will not offer any opinion here. I leave it to others to weigh this information accordingly and determine whether these issues and WMC's conduct rise to the level of [[WP:COI]]. --[[User:GoRight|GoRight]] ([[User talk:GoRight|talk]]) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:::I will offer an opinion here. This is not a correct application of policy. What if someone notable makes a public statement abusing collectively everyone who edits Wikipedia: can none of us then edit their article? You propose anyone with a blog can CHOOSE who is eligible to edit the article about them just by attacking everyone else. Why don't we stop this sort of silly time waste and get on with what matters, like the vandalism problems etc.?--[[User:BozMo|BozMo]] [[user talk:BozMo|talk]] 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Please see article history [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Trafalgar&curid=38855&action=history here] where the same IP (and in one case a different IP) has added the same unverified material a total of six times since 19 September despite edit summaries removing the material because it is unsourced. The second IP (presumably the same editor) acknowledges the addition to be [[WP:OR]] in the summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Trafalgar&diff=prev&oldid=1246834578 this edit]. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 09:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
== Violation of the guidelines for speedy deletion ==
 
:Has been blocked. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 23:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
This morning, after I created the article about the [[Open Web Foundation]], I was surprised that seven (yes 7) minutes later the article was already nominated for speedy deletion for an alleged, unverified, copyright violation. This despite a clear guideline in the criteria for speedy deletion stating that "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, ...". No attempt was made by the administrator to check if the article could be improved as he acted mechanically over a bot indication that their MAY contain a copyright violation.
 
== User:Vijay bhaskara reddy k - Copyvio ==
I then had to engage in a race to avoid the speedy deletion by tagging the article with a "hangon" tag, editing the article and providing proper explanation in the talk page.
 
Two hours later, another administrator changed the speedy deletion tag for another one, still calling for speedy deletion but for another reason. This time because the article did not "indicate the importance or significance of the subject". If this second administrator had spent less than a minute checking the relevance of the subject, they would have found lots of reliable sources. Therefore this second nomination was also violating Wikipedia guidelines.
 
Too many problematic contributions. A large set of subpar articles about various temples have been draftified in the last few hours by NPPs. No response on the talk page and there are multiple instances of copyright violations, including 20 images on Commons. [[WP:NOTHERE]] [[User:Jeraxmoira|Jeraxmoira🐉]] ([[User talk:Jeraxmoira|talk]]) 11:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Finally after other edits from myself and another generous contributor who added some references, a third administrator accepted to remove the speedy deletion tag entirely.
 
:I actually remove some of the copyvio he/she made on [[Sri Talpagiri Ranganadha Swamy Temple, Nellore]] where he/she basically copy paste the content and I also notice he/she made a close paraphrasing in some of article he/she made, (i didn't revdel as they Earwig only show around 40%) and just copyedit it. I was considering reporting but it think it is [[WP:BITEY]]. But I did not know that the photos were copyrighted lol. '''''Warm Regards''''', [[User:Miminity|Miminity]] ([[User talk:Miminity|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Miminity|contribs]]) 11:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
My point here is that at no time did the first two administrators consider they were violating their own guidelines of considering whether the article could be improved before nominating it for speedy deletion.
:Another one here, [[Kothakodur Beach]] was tag for CSD for G11 and by plugging this in Earwig it also is a copyvio of [https://www.tourtravelworld.com/india/nellore/koduru-beach.htm this] '''''Warm Regards''''', [[User:Miminity|Miminity]] ([[User talk:Miminity|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Miminity|contribs]]) 12:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:Requested block at commons [[c:COM:ANB#Vijay bhaskara reddy k]]. [[User:Myrealnamm-alt|Myrealnamm&#39;s Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Myrealnamm-alt|talk]]) 15:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' Blocked on Commons for uploading copyright violations after warning. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|talk]]) 17:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Personal attack ==
During this process we have exchanged a lot of messages on the discussion page of the article instead of improving the content of the article. A big waste of time for nothing because the cops@wikipedia won't consider they could have been violating their own guidelines and nobody will blame them for that. [[User:Uiteoi|Uiteoi]] ([[User talk:Uiteoi|talk]]) 00:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
:If an organization fails our [[WP:CORP|notability guidelines for inclusion]], it will be deleted after [[WP:AFD|a discussion about whether it should be deleted]]. The fast track to being deleted, which you have experienced, involves summarily deleting an article when it [[WP:CSD#A7|doesn't state why it's important]]. The simple way to avoid this is to state why the organization is important. Simply existing is insufficient rationale for notability. If you want to contest a deletion, please [[WP:DRV|consider taking your concerns to deletion review]]. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
| result = Reporter has been blocked for DE. There is no merit to their sock allegations about these established editors. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
}}
 
Oblivy, Russ Woodroofe and [[WP:No personal attacks|personal attacks on create new Page s from my account]]. Now it can be see that both the users, @[[User:Oblivy|Oblivy]], @[[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] are being targeted this page will be created from my account. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FOblivy#Suspected_sockpuppets Sockpuppet investigations] can be clearly seen in the previous AFD how they like to target and vote for delete pages.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tushar_Palve here] These two accounts are handled by the same user on different devices, of their account edits [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oblivy here], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russ_Woodroofe here] are checked, they are just constantly targeting one pages. [[User: Monophile|Monophile]] [[User talk: Monophile|💬]]</span></span> 02:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)</small>
::My point is that no administrator is willing to consider whether the article could have been improved per the guidelines for speedy deletion. So either change the guidelines or notify administrators to not be overzealous and check if the article can be improved. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Uiteoi|Uiteoi]] ([[User talk:Uiteoi|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Uiteoi|contribs]]) 00:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
::::It'sAm aI shortright articlein aboutsaying athat newyou orghave andstarted itan wasSPI speedyabout deletedthese onceusers, asand blatantone advertisingother, (Wikipediabecause getsthey ahave lotvoted ofin organ spam).AfD Ito wouldn'tdelete assumean thearticle adminyou waswant thoughtless.kept? If thereWhere is nothis meaningfulpersonal assertionattack ofand importance,what anevidence experiencedcan editoryou isprovide likelyfor towhat thinkyou thereare is nothing to improve.reporting? [[User:Gwen GalePickersgill-Cunliffe|Gwen GalePickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Gwen GalePickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 0012:4155, 2623 JulySeptember 20082024 (UTC)
::Monophile created a malformed SPI, which I've deleted, and added a quick checkuser request at SPI, which I've reverted. I've blocked them for 48 hours.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks @[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] for sorting this out while I was away-from-keyboard. Here's a bit of context:
:* recreation of deleted page (nom'd by me) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explicit#Request_Undeletion]
:* AfD of a newly-created page (nom'd by not-my-sock) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_September_23#Dhiraj_Sonawane]
:{{pb}}The AfD comments struck me at the time as a hair's-breadth away from violating [[WP:NPA]] but I didn't want to end up here if it could be avoided. Hopefully the block will give them a chance to reconsider their editing approach. [[User:Oblivy|Oblivy]] ([[User talk:Oblivy|talk]]) 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:You did not notify Russ Woodroofe about this discussion. I have done that this time, but if ever you launch another discussion about another editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 14:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:Is Monophile part of the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NasirRanjhyWala|NasirRanjhyWala drawer]]? Not as focused on that one person's article, but I see enough to ask for CU to consider taking a look ([[WP:BEANS|not posting that evidence here]]). [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 15:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::What exactly is your point? There is no pending deletion now that the problems seem to have been fixed. The article wasn't deleted, no harm done, we can't unspill the milk. Deletion taggings can be frustrating... but it's a necessary system to make sure the stuff that needs to be deleted does get deleted. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::All the accounts in that case are stale.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, to correct your misunderstanding, the first two people you mention were not administrators - administrators have the ability to delete articles, so would not have needed to tag them. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:Trying to interpret the original post, I think that {{user|Monophile}} is making accusations of harassment. I will disclose that per [[WP:HA#NO]], I did examine Monophile's contributions for policy violations. I had watchlisted [[Tushar Palve]] during the recent deletion discussion. Monophile requested refund to draft of that article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&diff=prev&oldid=1246637902][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Explicit&diff=prev&oldid=1246638597] (granted by {{u|Explicit}} with a strong suggestion to run through AfC), and subsequently moved the minimally-edited page back to mainspace, where it was speedily G4 deleted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AExplicit&diff=1247182144&oldid=1247174404]. The editing pattern gave me pause, and left me with questions on both the judgement and grasp of policy and guidelines of this fairly new editor. I saw a similar Mumbai physician of similarly questionable notability, again with lots of references but little substance, and (after a [[WP:BEFORE]]) nominated for deletion. I do not think that this constitutes harassment, and do not see anything from Oblivy that could even remotely be harassment. [[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] ([[User talk:Russ Woodroofe|talk]]) 15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:Like @[[User:Russ Woodroofe|Russ Woodroofe]] I watchlisted [[Tushar Palve]] and @Monophile’s talk page because of the prior AfD and our interactions. That's how I saw the recreation/deletion of Tushar Palve yesterday, as well as the nomination of [[Dhiraj Sonawane]] for deletion. Given my prior interactions with Monophile I could have waited before piling on -- while I don't think there was anything wrong with the substance or tone, the pace probably added to their frustration. This does look like inexperienced editor trying to create meaningful pages, but growth has to happen. That means considering what other editors say rather than lashing out. Editing existing pages may be a more promising path, as deletion discussions IMHO are not a model environment for new editors to learn about either policies and guidelines or civility. [[User:Oblivy|Oblivy]] ([[User talk:Oblivy|talk]]) 23:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Multiple different IP's constantly vandalizing the article: [[Battle of Barawa]] ==
::::Admins should not delete things on sight. They should tag them and let someone else look at it before it goes, just like everyone else. The more eyes the better. --[[User:Masamage|Masamage]] [[User talk:Masamage|♫]] 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Admins will add speedy tags so that another admin can concur with the suggestion. Admins are not perfect. We don't always delete on sight. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Oh I know, I mostly wanted to point out that if they were admins, this would have been a more obvious violation of policy, but I didn't word it well. The important correction is that the taggers were not admins. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::Understandable complaints. The trouble is there's a lot of work to do on improving the encyclopedia, and so people frequently do hurry with stuff like this when they believe it to be uncontroversial. The good news is that a deletion of an article can be undone just as easily as anything else--it only takes two or three clicks. So even when people are wrongfully cavalier, you can always get a deletion review as Slakr stated and discuss the article's merits even when it's gone. Meanwhile, no harm seems to have been done; we just all need to be patient with each other.
::The next thing to do, as Slakr said, is to add something to the article about the Foundation's notability. As the article's creator, this burden lies with you, and if you don't do it soon, someone else will probably try to speedy it. I would help, but I don't know anything about the subject matter, and a brief google search doesn't reveal a lot of notability. It's of course possible that I'm missing it, but I'm leaving the house soon and don't want to put too much time in. So please add what you know, or if you like, we can move it into your user-space to work it up to speed before putting it back in the encyclopedia-proper. --[[User:Masamage|Masamage]] [[User talk:Masamage|♫]] 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*This has been talked to death at the article talkpage. There's really no administrator action necessary here, that I can see. He's [[WP:AGF|assuming terrible faith]] of the both the initial tagger and the deleting admin. This has also been explained to him at the talkpage. I don't know what else can be done for this user. He seems to be wanting to extract a pound of flesh from the tagger and the deleting admin, but I just don't see any actionable mistakes on their part. [[Special:Contributions/S._Dean_Jameson|S.]] [[User:S. Dean Jameson|Dean]] [[User_talk:S. Dean Jameson|Jameson]] 00:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Hi, as you can see here in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Barawa&action=history editing history of the article], this page has persistantly been vandalized and there will always be someone who uses different IP's or makes new accounts in order to continue this. At the moment I am writing this, the page is completely vandalized. In the last few days I have already reverted the edits of these IP users 3 times but I don't want to continue doing it in order to avoid participating in edit-warring. I tried using page protection, [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/09#Battle of Barawa|see here]], but the response wasn't very helpful, perhaps the person who responded to my request didn't understand this situation very well. From the history of this page, even if this last Ip user is blocked, more IP's will strike again in the near future, it's very frustrating. Once again I don't want to participate in edit-warring or any activity that would break wikipedia's guidelines so I am leaving this here and hopefully an administrator will understand this issue and help me. Thanks for everything. [[User:Javext|Javext]] ([[User talk:Javext|talk]]) 12:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::The harm done is that we are now spending more time defending edits rather that contributing. This is happening more than ever. I am really tired of this. If these users were not administrators I don't understand why administrators can't consider that nonetheless there was indeed a violation of the guidelines for speedy deletion. Feel free to delete the article, or improve it yourself, I will no longer contribute to this bureaucracy. [[User:Uiteoi|Uiteoi]] ([[User talk:Uiteoi|talk]]) 00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::So long! [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]] {{IPA|&#448;}} [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 01:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::You are the one who brought this to this noticeboard... the deletion tags were already gone and resolved. Sometimes articles get tagged for deletion... it seems as if you wanted to sanction everyone involved. That's just not practical... people tag articles, sometimes the tagging ends up being unwarranted... but really it's just water under the bridge in the long run of Wikipedia. We do not really sanction people based on one incident that didn't do any actual harm. --[[User:Rividian|Rividian]] ([[User talk:Rividian|talk]]) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Semi-protected for a week. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] (solidly non-human), [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Huliva]] 17:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
-undent-
 
== IP hopper (re-)introducing bad copy-edits and [[WP:NOTSEEALSO]] bloat to CTOPICS ==
This form of behaviour is what I refer to as 'shit and run'; unless used on an article that obviously have no merits, it is extremely rude, especially when done to a new article. People who hang over recent changes like vultures so they can quickly slap speedy or prod tags on any articles that do not spring fully grown from the forehead of Athena are the worst type of editor. [[User:Jtrainor|Jtrainor]] ([[User talk:Jtrainor|talk]]) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
User has been warned countless times and generally does not appear to respond to talk page suggestions whatsoever. They are edit warring as can immediately be seen from their selfsame additions to [[Radical right (United States)]]. The IPs also never use edit summaries.
:No, the first [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Web_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=227808490 speedy tag] was perfectly fine. It was for G12, blatant copyright infringement, as {{user|CorenSearchBot}} correctly detected the article to substantially be a copy of content from [http://siliconflorist.com/2008/07/24/open-web-foundation-oscon-2008]. Notability or the lack of an assertion of it has nothing to do with it. It is you, Jtrainor, who are rude in labeling routine attention to copyright issues as "shit and run". The copyvio is still in the article, which should be speedily deleted by the administrator closing this discussion as resolved. The second speedy tag was also correct under A7 for lack of assertion of notability, although the tagging admin might just as well have deleted the article. We are not a blog; people who write articles must expect them to be speedily deleted if the articles are not much more than a few sentences copied from teh interwebz. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 07:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Here are my own recent finds:
:What an appalling example of bad faith. I am referring to Jtrainor's comments above. <font face="jokerman">[[User:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:green">Corvus cornix</span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Corvus cornix|<span style="color:Green">talk</span>]]''</sub></font> 07:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
'''Not stale, potentially worth blocking'''
::What needs to happen is that wikipedia administrators, and would be administrators, need to be less hasty at slamming these tags in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It is way too easy to slam these tags while someone is actually working on a new edit or article. As for the so-called copyright violation, it was maybe an improper citation of an extract of the charter of a public non-profit organization. Instead of slamming these tags, there are other ways, which in many case would be more appropriate, such as writing on the discussion page or to the (non-anonymous) user. You, the administrators, need to work on facilitating the work of contributors, while helping them provide content complying with wikipedia guidelines. [[User:Uiteoi|Uiteoi]] ([[User talk:Uiteoi|talk]]) 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|50.48.195.202}}
 
'''Stale'''
Please note that as the editor (not administrator) who originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, I would have appreciated being informed of this action taking place. I originally raised the speedy deletion as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Web_Foundation&oldid=227808490 the material] was a direct copy of text on [http://openwebfoundation.org/ this site]. It also read as advertising, and for a day old organisation I felt that it would be difficult to prove notability (I'm constantly reminded that we don't report news). I considered the merits of the article, as I do with all before tagging them for speedy deletion. I then attempted to engage with the editor concerned, both on my talkpage and the article's talkpage. I am concerned that the original article creator seems to be fixated upon process failings when the process worked as intended, and instead disregards the fact that he introduced copyrighted material. I am also concerned that he has ignored good-faith attempts by myself and ohers to help him create better articles, and instead has focused on this singular purpose. If my action was incorrect, please let me know, however I feel I acted carefully and in good faith. Many thanks, '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>'''''<sub>(<font color="black">[[User: Gazimoff/Mentoring|mentor]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Gazimoff|review]])</font></sub> 09:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|50.49.119.210}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.117.228}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.135.167}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.208.235}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.132.58}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.116.191}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.137.233}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.122.138}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.100.247}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.232.212}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.123.118}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.138.215}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.193.168}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.194.12}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.134.206}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.127.142}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.203.231}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.248.49}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.194.12}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.126.62}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.237.124}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.235.13}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.99.41}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.212.159}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.229.249}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.103.224}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.233.71}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.150.238}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.123.64}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.110.16}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.155.97}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.247.235}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.241.158}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.100.4}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.236.154}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.199.153}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.208.206}}
* {{userlinks|45.53.127.238}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.148.213}}
* {{userlinks|50.49.157.73}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.223.43}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.193.215}}
* {{userlinks|50.48.222.154}}
 
Apparently, this case has an even more expansive history than I thought; and there have even been some ineffectual bans the IPs are now evading:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken/Bad_copyediting_IP]
{{hat|From a user talk page}}
{{tq2|
*{{rangevandal|50.48.192.0/18}}
**[[Special:Contributions/50.48.207.200]] was blocked for 61 days in mid-August 2023
**[[Special:Contributions/50.48.247.52]] was blocked for 3 months
**[[Special:Contributions/50.48.216.127]] was blocked twice
**[[Special:Contributions/50.48.246.108]] was blocked for 1 month
 
:I've looked carefully, and I agree with Gazimoff's statement above. It is true that editors and admins should always act in good faith, but it is clear that Gazimoff followed this during the talk page discussion. There are no grounds for admin action here. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>(talk)</small>]] 09:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
*[[User:45.53.118.135]] (June 20, 2023)
== Colbert vandalism ==
*<s>[[User:47.32.9.63]]</s> (probably not)
 
According to a friend of mine from college who works on the [[Colbert Report|Report]], [[Steven Colbert]] has discovered that any article he mentions on Wikipedia is immediately locked. Consequently, they are going to do a bit on Monday where he reads a list of articles to see how many viewers can get to them before they are locked. Appearently the joke is to say that each thing is not really that thing, but really something else. For example, ''aardvark'' is not really an animal, its a hard coating on the outside of a tree. They continue revising the script right up until they tape the show so the list may change by Monday evening, but as of now it is as follows:
 
* [[AardvarkUser:50.48.201.39]]
* [[BulgariaUser:50.48.201.166]]
* [[Charlie ChaplanUser:50.48.223.237]]
* [[Don KingUser:50.48.225.159]]
* [[Elephants]] (yes we've seen this one before)
* [[Frank Lloyd Wright]]
* [[Gilgamesh]]
* [[Hoisin sauce]]
* [[Italy]]
* [[John McCain]]
* [[Kremlin]]
* [[Leopold Kronecker]]
* [[Marrakesh]]
* [[Niigata]]
* [[Orcas]]
* [[Polo]]
* [[Quebec]]
* [[Randolph Carter]]
* [[Silver]]
* [[Tarantella]]
* [[Uganda]]
* [[Victor Victoria]]
* [[Winnipeg]]
* [[Xenon]]
* [[Yellow Sea]] -- I can only imagine what this one is
* [[Zwide]]
 
*[[User:50.49.99.32]]
Just thought you guys should have a heads up. -[[User:Anon colbert watcher|Anon colbert watcher]] ([[User talk:Anon colbert watcher|talk]]) 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*[[User:50.49.101.218]]
*[[User:50.49.103.47]]
*[[User:50.49.104.237]]
*[[User:50.49.105.14]]
*[[User:50.49.105.144]]
*[[User:50.49.106.70]]
*[[User:50.49.106.142]]
*[[User:50.49.107.178]]
*[[User:50.49.107.216]]
*[[User:50.49.109.26]]
*[[User:50.49.110.188]]
*[[User:50.49.110.202]]
*[[User:50.49.111.154]]
*[[User:50.49.112.23]]
*[[User:50.49.113.154]]
*[[User:50.49.113.254]]
*[[User:50.49.114.212]]
*[[User:50.49.115.72]]
*[[User:50.49.117.0]]
*[[User:50.49.117.187]]
*[[User:50.49.118.227]]
*[[User:50.49.119.130]]
*[[User:50.49.119.217]]
*[[User:50.49.122.146]]
*[[User:50.49.122.152]]
*[[User:50.49.124.80]]
*[[User:50.49.124.147]]
*[[User:50.49.124.214]]
*[[User:50.49.125.131]]
*[[User:50.49.128.108]]
*[[User:50.49.128.124]]
*[[User:50.49.129.157]]
*[[User:50.49.129.236]]
*[[User:‎50.49.131.162]]
*[[User:50.49.131.166]]
*[[User:50.49.134.241]]
*[[User:50.49.136.160]]
*[[User:50.49.137.108]]
*[[User:50.49.141.26]]
*[[User:50.49.141.131]]
*[[User:50.49.143.180]]
*[[User:50.49.143.248]]
*[[User:50.49.146.75]]
*[[User:50.49.148.152]]
*[[User:50.49.152.119]]
*[[User:50.49.152.150]]
*[[User:50.49.154.133]]
*[[User:50.49.159.188]]
 
Located in Pittsford, outside of Rochester, New York. Beginning in January 2019:
:Wow. Funny guy. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Also, apparently unrelated, in Montreal:
:Thanks for the list--we don't protect articles preemptively, but we'll keep an eye on the Report. --[[User:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#297AA3">'''jonny'''</span>]]-[[Special:Contributions/jonny-mt|<span style="color:#A3293D">'''m'''</span>]][[User talk:jonny-mt|<span style="color:#3DA329">'''t'''</span>]] 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
*[[User:2605:8D80:5A0:7B06:E031:9D1C:5632:3BB2]]
::We have protected articles pre-emptively for Colbert in the past. I fielded a specific request from Jimbo prior to one of his appearances to lock a few. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhinoceros&action=protect] for instance. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 03:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*[[User:184.160.78.155]]
}}
{{hab}}
 
'''Conclusion)''' Recurrent interests of the apparent LTA case include racism of all varieties, right-wing politics, but also e.g. peculiar articles like the [[Pre-Adamite]] and [[British Israelism]] ones. [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15|talk]]) 15:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Ya get the feeling Colbert is not taking wikipedia seriously? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 04:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:{{tlx|Checkuser needed}}! A CU should really check the last few stale IPs as well to exclude that this is additionally a case of edit warring qua [[WP:LOUTSOCK]] across multiple articles. [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15|talk]]) 15:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Phil, while I think your preemptive protection back then was right, I also have to agree with Jonny now. While this anon's warning is good to have, any action before "air" (that is to say, taping) could be used against us. It's kind of a live grenade, in fact. Anything we do or do not do proactively, as well as anything vandals might do proactively, could rebound. I think letting it go and keeping our eyes open is not only the safest, but least show-worthy thing we could do. --[[User:InkSplotch|InkSplotch]] ([[User talk:InkSplotch|talk]]) 04:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::A CheckUser will not connect IPs to named accounts for privacy reasons.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]]. Well, but if I'm not mistaken, they can still block such accounts on their own without telling anybody here. Right? In that case, please restore the template/point some unnamed CU to this case. [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15|talk]]) 15:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Doesn't need a CU to block based on [[WP:DUCK]] [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 15:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:There appear to be ''a lot'' more implicated IPs as far as I can tell. But this should be enough to demonstrate that there might be some serious LTA going on. [[User:Biohistorian15|Biohistorian15]] ([[User talk:Biohistorian15|talk]]) 17:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::It's a wide range of IPs, and it has been going on for I don't even remember how long - I can say that at least a year or more, probably longer. Their edits are essentially of two varieties: (1) gross expansion of "see also" lists (like way over the top inclusions) and (2) copyediting to a more pedestrian wording (unnecessary conjunctions, overworded clauses, and similar) that does not improve article quality. They will ignore all forms of attempted communication, whether that's article talk, edit summary, or user talk notices. So LTA would be putting it mildly, IMO. It's been going on so long, I'm essentially numb to it at this point. Some of the IPs have received blocks, and that has usually occurred during periods of significant, repetitive disruption. [[User:Butlerblog|<span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="color:#333366;">Butler</span><span style="font-style:italic;color:#D2B48C;">Blog</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Butlerblog|talk]]) 23:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:I think that's the bilateral relations troll ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Bilateral_relations_troll_5%3A_Rio_Heist|previous discussion]]). [[User:Drmies|Drmies]], can you confirm? '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 00:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*I've been [[User:Nythar/User tracking#Bad copyediting IP|tracking them]] for a while now and I'd definitely appreciate some intervention because their edits are a pain to revert. [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
 
==Thewikizoomer Bludgeoning==
::::What is the wikipedia policy, if any, regarding action to take, if any, when there is knowledge of impending vandalism? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 04:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Thewikizoomer}}
::::::[[WP:IAR]]? I suggest someone watch the show and report back here. [[User talk:John Reaves|John Reaves]] 05:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::maybe we should bite back. whatever words Colbert ends up using on his show, let's work them into his article - for instance, if he mentions 'aardvark', I think we should edit in some scandalous information about his pet aardvark Humphrey. that'll teach him to mess with wikipedia... ;-) --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 04:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:: lol I completey agre. The only way to fight and exortation of violence is to vgiorously violate [[WP:BLP]] as oftne as we can :D
:: w/re: Bugs's quesiton, if there is soid proof of impending vadliams, (as opposed to a threat by a user or forum), i think that an admin might watch out for that article. we dont want to wind up locking down a whole article just because omeone MIGHT mention it and oter people MIGHT come and vandalism it; we want to respond to actual evidnece of malfeasance force. [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] ([[User talk:Smith Jones|talk]]) 04:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
Editor [[user:Thewikizoomer]] has been blugeoning other editors at the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited]] amongst other Afds, driving editors away and stopping it coming to consensus. This is one of three articles with similar names including [[Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited]] and [[Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited]] that were sent to Afd after a merge discussion at [[Talk:Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited]] was opened and failed. The editor bludgeoned folk there, was warned. The merge never got anywhere. The articles were then moved to Afd to get a better consensus. However, the editor is bludgeoning folk there as well, was warned at Afd, but still doing it which is stalling the discussion on them as well. I'd like a couple of weeks of clear discussion so it can come to a consensus without interference. The editor has made his point clearly in all three Afds. Can somebody have a chat with the editor. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">[[User:scope_creep|<span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]</sup></span>''' 17:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Fuck that guy is funny. I suggest we let the articles go haywire for a couple days till they get bored, then we revert back to the good version and carry on. Lets not feed the really funny trolls. And to the fella who suggested Colbert was not taking Wikipedia seriously, I suggest that he only mocks serious subjects. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 04:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:'''Comment:''' It's not bludgeoning.
:::: I'm pretty sure there are enough administrators who are also Colbert fans that they will react accordingly when they have to. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Gary King|<font color="#02e">Gary</font>&nbsp;<font color="#02b"><b>King</b></font>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Gary King|<font color="#02e">talk</font>]])</font> 05:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:I never said a single point again and again. My discussion lead to clearing misunderstanding that took place.
:Most importantly, my inputs may have also made it clear to users unfamiliar with the subject that they are different companies.
:And also my inputs were civil, reasonable, and much needed for reaching consensus. The discussions available at Afds are self explanatory to this.
:Also the user @[[User:Scope creep|Scope creep]] may note "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for [[Wikipedia:CONSBUILD|consensus building]]." as mentioned in [[WP:BLUD]].
:If anything is undesirable here, that is trying to create hostility by using words such as "one more comment and I'll take you to WP:ANI" like an involved user said [[Talk:Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited#c-Scope creep-20240913094100-Thewikizoomer-20240913042500|here]] which doesn't appear to be a comment to be made on a collaborative project like Wikipedia.
:It's unreasonable to says it is bludgeoning. [[User:Thewikizoomer|Thewikizoomer]] ([[User talk:Thewikizoomer|talk]]) 17:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::Also I can't help it if there are no the merge proposal lead nowhere due to lack of participation. I can't be blamed for that. [[User:Thewikizoomer|Thewikizoomer]] ([[User talk:Thewikizoomer|talk]]) 17:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You're literally aggressively responding to every single comment, sometimes multiple times. These links read like you're clearly trying to dominate the conversation per [[WP:BLUDGEON]]. Responding to people with things like "so according to me it doesn't make sense" and "it's still unfair" are not helpful or substantive. Make all your points and leave others to make theirs and let the closer evaluate consensus. An ANI warning was fair at this point, though I don't think action needs to be taken if you actually ''back off'' and quit trying to be the grand inquisitor of this article. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 17:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::My intent was never to be aggressive or dominate, the intent was to clear misunderstandings and nothing else as most users may not be aware of how Indian Power Sector is structured or work, so yeah, let us let the closer evaluate the consensus. [[User:Thewikizoomer|Thewikizoomer]] ([[User talk:Thewikizoomer|talk]]) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' — I find Thewikizoomer's behaviour to be very problematic, for example they responded to scope_creep's comments with the exact same comment beginning with "Oppose merge all" in bold despite them already voting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1245293721/1245293942] Constant [[WP:BADGER|badgering]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1245293721/1245293942][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1245368205/1245464104][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1245194356/1245290040][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1245291968/1245293332]. Accusing scope_creep[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1245464199/1245464264] of personally attacking them when there was nothing in their reply that could be considered as such [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1245294208/1245364398].Their recent edits where they moved [[Pune airport]] to [[Jagadguru Sant Tukaram Maharaj Airport]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jagadguru_Sant_Tukaram_Maharaj_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1247235278], as well as renaming mentions of it on different articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pune&diff=prev&oldid=1247238032][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pune&diff=prev&oldid=1247237598][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pune&diff=prev&oldid=1247237327][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_airports_by_IATA_airport_code:_P&diff=prev&oldid=1247238358][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Pune_topics&diff=prev&oldid=1247237735][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1247237085], in spite of the fact it is not the official name yet, let a common one[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pune&diff=prev&oldid=1247271252]. Their mass merging proposals of NTPC building articles are problematic as well. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NTPC_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=1247302651][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Thewikizoomer&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2024-09-23&end=2024-09-24&limit=50] Especially when the rationale for it is seemingly lacking in any actual policy. "{{tq|Owned by NTPC and there is little to no reason to have separate article, All plants are owned by one company}}". They have nominated articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CharlieMehta&diff=prev&oldid=1247277237][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CharlieMehta&diff=prev&oldid=1247277075] created by {{ping|CharlieMehta}} who voted oppose on the original Afd, in their reply to Thewikizoomer they said[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1247272907/1247289489]:"{{tq|I have noticed your actions on the NTPC Power Plant pages I created as per WP:NBUILDING rule. This seems to be driven by a sense of vengeance}}". Since this report was filed, they have been mass welcoming new users despite some of those users having zero edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Ulimate_Ultima&oldid=1247307030][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hassan_pogohk&oldid=1247307457][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tokollo_Dhlamini&oldid=1247307312][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elskidis&oldid=1247307248], I can't see this as anything other than an attempt to bury their edit history in order to avoid scrutiny. I would also like to state that Thewikizoomer is aware of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewikizoomer&diff=prev&oldid=1193605387 CT IPA]. <span style="font-family:'forte'">[[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] <b>([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])</b></span> 01:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::Welcoming [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FutBucker05050&oldid=1247308440 this user with an obvious inappropriate name] and thanking them for their non-existent contributions...then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=1247308563 reporting them to UAA] a mere minute later shows we may have a [[WP:CIR]] case here. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 01:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== [[User:100julian]] ==
::::And subjects that take themselves seriously while having major failings that he can use to show hypocrisy. Like Wikipedia. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] ([[User talk:ThuranX|talk]]) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
{{atop
 
| result = Cullen328 has removed TPA. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Given that the show is taped ahead of time, I doubt there's much to worry about. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
}}
 
{{atop
Hmm, to float an idea that popped into mind: why not use this opportunity to give [[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions|reversion flagging]] a trial run? All we need is the devs to turn it on temporarily (it's already installed and in use on the German Wikipedia), and then an admin to go flag the current versions as stable, and set stable versions to display for those articles. Then people can vandalize to their hearts' content, and it won't show up to the general public. --[[User:Slowking Man|Slowking Man]] ([[User talk:Slowking Man|talk]]) 07:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
| result = Already reported them to AIV, no need for this thread. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 00:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
 
}}
== [[User:Docmartincohen]] ==
 
I previously expressed concern over this user - my concern is, at this point, deepened - it appears to me that the sole or primary purpose of this user's editing Wikipedia is to promote his own work, and denigrate that of people he sees as his opponents. Since having his page [['101' as a teaching method for Philosophy]] deleted, which was a promotional article for a book he wrote, he's been making numerous edits promoting his own work: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&diff=prev&oldid=227195962], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_philosophy&diff=prev&oldid=227441053].
 
In addition, there have been serious problems with him seeming to crusade against other people in his field - tagging two articles as COI with little evidence, and maintaining a page that is [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Docmartincohen/Wikipropaganda and manipulation|seemingly slated for deletion]] as an attack page.
 
I'm not sure what to do here - as someone who nominated one of his pages for deletion and tried to courtesy blank the attack page, I feel too close to really step in, but I think somebody needs to. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== Block review for User:Lenerd ==
 
{{user|Lenerd}} has been editing here for just about a month (with a single edit from one year ago) and has been indefinitely blocked for some minor mistakes, and without any warning. Confusion is understandable, since he did things such as blanking a number of categories from an article, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Carlin&diff=prev&oldid=226709130] giving a user warning to the editor who reverted this, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onorem&diff=prev&oldid=226710008] and making the redirect [[Pig Empire]]. He has, however, explained all of these things, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALenerd&diff=227508862&oldid=227478619] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALenerd&diff=227518778&oldid=227517712] and none of them appear to be ''vandalism''.
 
The first admin to review his unblock request does so pretty blindly, and doesn't even seem to look at his edit history or his unblock request. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lenerd&diff=next&oldid=227523000]. The user puts up another unblock request, around the time I was looking at the unblock request category. I leave a note for the original blocking admin [[User:Sandstein]] at [[User talk:Sandstein#User:Lenerd]]. In this time [[User:Ultraexactzz]] asks for a further explanation and Lenerd provides one.
 
Sandstein reviews, more discussion goes on, and to me it's pretty clear that this editor is not here to cause disruption and understands the basic gist of our rules. See [[User talk:Lenerd#You are indefinitely blocked]] for full discussion.
 
However, for some reason Sandstein has not unblocked this editor, whom shouldn't have been blocked like this in the first place.
 
So I'm bringing it here for review. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:I'm interested to hear what others think. Lenerd is not your typical vandal, that much is clear; he has made productive (if generally automated) edits and mostly seems to be here with the ''intention'' to do good. However, he's engaged in blatantly disruptive conduct in a number of areas in a relatively short span of time, which is why I have blocked him for the reasons given on his talk page. I've made clear at the outset that I don't mean this to be an infinite block. I have stated that I will unblock him if he convinces me that he understands what he's done wrong and that he won't do it again. That has not happened so far. The gist of his responses on his talk page is that, while he may have been excessively zealous in some areas, in general he feels entitled to do as he pleases. I've also made clear at the outset that I won't object if another admin unblocks him if they feel that he is not or no longer a problem. But in that case, I would expect that admin to continue to watch his conduct and to intervene in the event of continued disruption. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== [[Comfort women]] ==
 
Guys and gals, we badly need more admin eyes on [[Comfort women]], our current Korean-Japanese hotspot. This is worse than [[Liancourt Rocks]]. (Not least because it's a much more serious topic and having continuous edit warring on it really looks bad on Wikipedia.)
 
I made the mistake of expressing an editorial opinion (gasp!) on this article while trying to deal with a tendentious sockpuppet (thanks Moreschi for blocking [[User:Lucyintheskywithdada]]), so I'm currently not in a good position to wield the banhammer as I'd wish. That means the article is without any close admin scrutiny right now.
 
There's Japanese tendentious editing in trying to include a long undue-weight passage trying to relativise the Japanese crime by sharing the blame with the evil Koreans, and there's Korean tendentious editing in trying to spice up the article with unencyclopedic emotionalising material such as long repetitive lists of atrocities, detailed witness reports with all sorts of colorful details and so on.
 
Top of the to-be-blocked list right now are {{user|Logitech95}} and {{user|Northwest1202}}. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 05:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:Update: Actually, I have just topic-banned {{user|Logitech95}} and {{user|Danceneveril}} from all Korean-Japanese articles for two months each, for their activities on [[Liancourt Rocks]], [[Korea under Japanese rule]] and elsewhere. We need very forceful admin intervention in this field, as per the latest discussion [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive450#Liancourt Rocks|here]]. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 05:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
::I'm willing to take it on my watchlist for a while, as I've never edited in this area (I think). Are there any on-point ArbCom remedies covering this area, or is it basic blocking policy only? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 06:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::I've also protected the article for a week to stop the ongoing editwarring; this should give it some breathing space. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 06:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::There's only officially the article probation on Liancourt Rocks ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks]]). I'm of the opinion that we should just act as if it covered the whole Japanese-Korean mess, Balkan-style. I can't be bothered to ask Arbcom to endorse it though, we should just do it on admin consensus alone. Why not. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 06:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Seems reasonable to me. We should be able to deal with this here ourselves as well as they can, unless there's dissent about it. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 07:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
The Japanese-Korea article area is getting more and more problematic. I support the topic bans. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 09:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:I have never edited or read the article in question, but will gladly watchlist it. If I am accused of a pro or activist bias in either direction, as I have been on other articles I never actively contributed to, I will resign from Wikipedia. This is an important topic, and deserves full neutrality across the board, as any Encyclopedia (and this wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, no?) should do. Feel free to decline my offer if you think I cannot be neutral in disputes. [[User:Jeffpw|Jeffpw]] ([[User talk:Jeffpw|talk]]) 09:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== Japanese war crimes/Yamashita's gold (redux) ==
 
User:JimBobUSA has been warned many times about deleting a credible/reliable references (such as a long article by notable historian [[Chalmers Johnson]], from the ''[[London Review of Books]]'') from [[Yamashita's gold]]. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from [[Japanese war crimes]], while misrepresenting it as a "novel".This suggests that he either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (1) novels, (2) scholarly books and (3) book reviews.
 
I have been involved with various disputes with User:JimBobUSA regarding the content of the Yamashita's gold article. Protracted, agonising discussion with him goes nowhere. He seems impermeable to reason and viewpoints other than his own prejudices. He did not respond at all to my suggestion of formal mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold/Archive_1 on January 14]. User:JimBobUSA seems prone to [[WP:LAWYER|lawyering]] and to be disinterested in consensus and cooperation. As User:Hesperian noted here on 18 July:
:''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yamashita%27s_gold/Archive_1#Dubious_.7C_Discuss_and_Fact_tags_have_been_prematurely_removed This thread] seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".''
 
I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with User:JimBobUSA directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. I think a stern warning, with follow up action if necessary, from someone other than me may help. Thank you. [[User:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Grant</span>]] | [[User talk:Grant65|<span style="color:black">Talk</span>]] 06:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== [[Brian Peck]] ==
 
{{Resolved|1=Edit has been permanently removed and the editor warned - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 08:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)}}
 
User seems to be running an automated script to replace all occurrences of "i.e." by "that is" on many articles in rapid succession. Has been warned repeatedly, needs swift blocking. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 00:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
A new page, [[Brian Peck]] just appeared. It makes accusations of sex offences with no citations; and with a bit of goggling around I cannot find any. Obviously removing them still leaves them in the edit history which worries me. Don't know what can be done; but I presume there's some sort of scrubbing mechanism for this type of thing? --[[User:Blowdart|Blowdart]] | [[User talk:Blowdart|''<sup>talk</sup>'']] 06:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:I believe you're looking for [[WP:OVERSIGHT]]--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 07:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:: Aha. Done. Thank you. --[[User:Blowdart|Blowdart]] | [[User talk:Blowdart|''<sup>talk</sup>'']] 07:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
=== User:Fabrice WilmannTPA ===
Actually, could someone remove their TPA if deemed necessary? They're going a bit crazy there. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 00:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
 
== Persistent addition of unsourced content by 176.84.121.244, again ==
Please vanish my account and any trace of my name 'Fabrice Wilmann.'
Thank-you. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fabrice Wilmann|Fabrice Wilmann]] ([[User talk:Fabrice Wilmann|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fabrice Wilmann|contribs]]) 07:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
{{userlinks|176.84.121.244}} - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning and hasn't responded to warnings, and behaviour continued after a 72h block on September 8th. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165#Persistent_addition_of_unsourced_content_by_176.84.121.244|previous ANI report]]. Examples of addition of unsourced content: {{diff|List of programmes broadcast by TV3 (Malaysia)|prev|1247262224|1}}, {{diff|CCTV-4|prev|1247262575|2}}, {{diff|CCTV-8|prev|1247262866|3}}. [[User:Waxworker|Waxworker]] ([[User talk:Waxworker|talk]]) 02:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:Hi, please follow the process as explained at [[WP:RTV]]. To vanish, you may [[WP:CHU|request an username change]] to something that is not your real name, then change all links pointing to your old account accordingly, then request deletion of your user page. That's as much as we can do; accounts cannot be deleted outright. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
== [[User: Floppy disks are cool| Floppy disks are cool]] ==
== SYSTEM BUG: rollback replaced a page by an irrelevant page instead of reverting ==
is obviously a sock of someone, but are they actually who they claim to be on their userpage? The last report at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zsfgseg/Archive]] was 7 years ago. Can someone take a look? Thanks. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 03:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
*See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history .
**In page [[Unidentified flying object]], at 02:13, 26 July 2008 [[User:68.6.121.57]] replaced a word "they" by "there". This was a good-faith edit, but wrong, so at 04:18, 26 July 2008 I reverted it by rollback. But the rollback mechanism, insteads of reverting, replaced the page by a copy of an edit of page [[Massoud Rajavi]] (which is a page which I have never edited).
**At 08:25, 26 July 2008 [[User:Rursus]] noticed the change and reverted it, and complained to me in my talk page.
**In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_object&action=history , the automatically-generated edit info line "''04:18, 26 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard (75,793 bytes) (Reverted edits by 68.6.121.57 (talk) to last version by Kingrook)''" gives the page length of the UFO matter that should be in that edit, not the page length of the Massoud Rajavi matter that is in that edit. [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 09:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 
:... Aannnd blocked just as I posted this. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 03:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::The same thing happened earlier today, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J.delanoy_2&diff=227951742&oldid=227948441 here]. It replaced the page with [[Henry Cavill]] in this case. As above, the byte size was consistent with what the editor intended to do, not with what was actually in the article. Someone needs to do a Buzilla report I guess. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 09:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
::All known accounts are very {{StaleIP}}, so Checkuser won't be any help. Behaviorally, yeah that's probably him. The pattern matches; some people just have too much time on their hands. I'll file a pro forma SPI to get it logged in case this it can be useful for a future CU. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 03:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It happened to me as well, except that, instead of replacing [[Talk:Pikachu]] with another page, it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APikachu&diff=227969847&oldid=227965808 blanked the page]. I didn't realize it had done so (I could see the edit I made and didn't see a blank page) until [[User:A Man In Black]] reverted it. -<font color="32CD32">''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]]''</font> <font color="4682B4"><sup>([[User talk:Jéské Couriano/Discussions|v^_^v]] [[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Mrrph-mph!]])</sup></font> 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
:::{{Done}} <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 03:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents"