Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1017

Tony May and persistent criticism and belittling of other editors on British railways

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

This has gone on for some months and shows no sign of decreasing, with new outbreaks in recent days. Tony May (talk · contribs) is a self-proclaimed expert on British railways, photography and Wikipedia editing. I have no intention of challenging this. Other editors do not reach his standards and he is never slow to remind us of this. His comments thus are dismissive of other editors' work and personally insulting. A number of editors have suffered from this.

Around January, there was substantial disagreement with Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) over use of their photographs in articles. There was considerable debate over this and a broad agreement in the UK Railways project that Moylesy's edits were an issue, but also that Tony's comments were far too personalised. This went on for months, with no improvement:

• User talk:Moylesy98#It's not a good idea
• Talk:LMS Jubilee Class 5690 Leander#Photographs (May)

This wasn't limited to one editor as target:

• WT:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_45#Continual criticisms by Tony May (May, O Still Small Voice of Clam)

After some peace over the Summer, we're now back at a different article:

• WT:WikiProject UK_Railways#Use of fan art diagrams to illustrate liveries already illustrated with photographs
• WP:Village pump (policy)#Use of fan art in articles
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_45#Livery_diagrams This actually goes as far back as April

Yesterday this one pops up:

• User talk:Railfan23#You need to undo your ill-advised moves·

• Well, I thought it had been peaceful over the Summer, evidently not: "don't use that crap photo", "You really don't understand the point of consensus (see the talk page), or indeed that the inadequate Hest Bank image replaced (presumably by anon) a much better image."

British Rail Class 390 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This isn't targetted to any single editor, so I'm not going to go into the diffs, but they're there in the links. The common theme here is Tony May. He seems unable to critique any content without it turning into sniping at the editor themself. We might excuse a few of these (they're not great, it happens) but this seems to be a pervasive theme with Tony and there are few edits with anything but.

• "- that unfortunately is not a productive comment, but given your history, it's not unexpected. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Introduction - especially the bit where it says "if you don't want your work critiqued and mercilessly edited by others, don't contribute." Do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?"
• " Firstly I don't need to make you look like a "shit photographer" - you're managing that all by yourself on Flickr."
• "inclusion of poor quality fan art"
• " I think it's best first to have a really long hard think about what you're doing and be knowledgeable about the subject. "

I think we need a strong warning here, and an indication that sanctions will follow unless this stops immediately. Or perhaps something stronger. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Andy Dingley's reading of the situation here. As I said to Tony May a week ago, Your "the only person who's opinion matters is mine and when everyone else disagrees then everyone else is wrong" attitude is fundamentally incompatible with multiple core values of Wikipedia, and if you're not willing to change your approach then eventually people will decide to stop giving you second chances; the fact that you're still able to edit Wikipedia at all is a result of people extending a huge amount of WP:AGF towards you in the hope that you'll stop fucking about, not the fact that anyone supports you. Wikipedia thrives on having people with a broad range of interests and with a broad range of views, but people who aren't willing or able to appreciate the fact that other people will sometimes disagree with them aren't welcome here.; the fact of the User talk:Railfan23#You need to undo your ill-advised moves· thread linked above strongly indicates that Tony May appears unable or unwilling to separate "I think I'm correct" from "I think everyone else is an idiot". (Note that I know or care very little about steam trains and have no idea whether or not Tony May is correct in this particular case; but whether he's correct does not matter if he's not willing to discuss things.) I don't want to see Tony May blocked—he clearly thinks he's being helpful—but he needs it driven home to him that he's not irreplacable and that if he genuinely refuses to follow our rules we don't want him no matter what positives he brings. ‑ Iridescent 13:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I was certainly surprised by Tony May's post n my talk page. It was rude and a very hostile way to start interacting with another editor. If it was a one-off, it would be excusable, but as part of a broader pattern of interactions, it is worrying. Railfan23 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony May raises a valid point but they are too dogmatic about it. Photography more appropriately conveys valid information than "artist-created" imagery. I am distancing myself from the term "fan art" used in this thread. The likelihood of an image being original research is greater when a human, by hand, makes a drawing, than it is when a camera snaps an image. This is not 100% true all the time but I think it is a general principle and I think it is the principle Tony May is invoking. Availability of images is a factor and different types of images—mechanically-produced by a camera, and hand-rendered by other techniques—can supplement each other in an article. Tony May's point should be understood but Tony May should not insist that only photographically-produced images are acceptable. Diagrams are commonly used throughout the project. They can be said to be artist-created but they serve very well at conveying information. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The information they contain needs to be verifiable though. Fan art, meanwhile, is a not a derogatory term. Some fan art is absolutely brilliant. Almond Plate (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The only point I disagree with in Andy's post is the start date. It's not a 2019 thing, this user page proves that the attitude has been present since 2012. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Checking your links I noticed that in most cases other users sniped at Tony first. While Tony occasionally also gives compliments (and photography advice), these other users seem more focused on getting their way. I do agree that Tony should phrase his edit summaries differently, but there is room for improvement for everybody involved. Almond Plate (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The term "Fan art" is irrelevant to this discussion. Imagery resulting from from highly mechanized processes produces highly rational imagery. A camera doesn't care if it is set up in front of a boring object or an interesting object. A human-rendered image is more likely to show signs of having been influenced by subjective factors. The use of photographic equipment bypasses subjective factors to result in what I am calling rational images. It is hard to call rational images original research. Handmade imagery is more vulnerable to charges of original research. On the other hand, handmade images can be free of extraneous information. Therefore judgement has to be exercised. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Fan art" is doubly insulting, when it's used in this context. No way round it. It describes the editor, not as an 'illustrator' or 'editor', taking their role here seriously, but as merely a 'fan'. A passive follower of railways (and by context, a trivialised subject), with no sense of agency or skill. Secondly it lumps these in with fan art, a niche that's by and large seen as utterly pointless and largely unskilled.

Valid criticisms here would be "The colours are wrong" (professionally my day job is to colour match some of these and I get endless trouble from it) or "That logo version never appeared with that colour set" or similar things. But I've heard none of those: the criticisms aren't even objective, they're purely subjective IDONTLIKEIT. At least for photos, Tony often had an underlying reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

We all have different backgrounds. As someone who uses fan art a lot, I have the utmost respect for the people that create it. The criticism here was that it was of poor quality. Almond Plate (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the criticism was unsubstantiated. An editor can't just say "low quality" and walk away as if he has made an argument. Same with "looks amateurish" or a lot of other things Tony has said. It's about as convincing as someone saying "he's notable" as their entire keep !vote at AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to raise what he said on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WestRail642fan#Illustrating_Articles and he is effecting telling to stay away from wikipedia Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I presume that's related to Talk:British_Rail_Class_370#Do_we_really_need_the_MS_paint_diagram?? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep Andy, and the issue he raised on the 370 was because his sources only showed the APT running with 9 coaches when all fact and sources on the article itself point to and confirm 14 coaches, which my diagram shows Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

...Over train photos. I read the discussion and what screams out at me is the obsessiveness of the argument about why that diagram can't work. Stuff about it not having the right number of cats. I think it would be in Tony May's benefit to recognize that the average reader of an article with that diagram would not care in the slightest if the number of same-looking train cars is not 100% accurate. This feels like an argument one would be having on a wiki specifically for train enthusiasts, not a general information encyclopedia. Tony, calm down please. 2001:4898:80E8:8:4A8C:90EF:7D89:7E37 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony is giving you well-meant advice. Your artwork can't stay here unless it gets sourced, which seems unlikely at the moment. It will be appreciated much more elsewhere. I would suggest DeviantArt though rather than Flickr. DeviantArt has a whole community of artists working on train liveries. Almond Plate (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I do actually post them to deviantART is well, but they are primarily meant for use here Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Almond Plate there is no substantive difference between a diagram of a train based on photos and an encyclopaedia article based on published news/papers/magazines/etc. Both are easily checkable, but will not be 100% a replication of the details. For instance a news article might say "Joe Bloggs lived at 10 Borough Road, Islington", whereas we might write "Joe Bloggs lived in London", but we can look at the source and say "yes, that statement is justified". Similarly we can look at a photo of the train and say "yes, that looks about right". Maybe we need to look at 100 photos to accept every bit of the diagram, but it can be checked. The point of the diagram is to summarise the livery in a more easily-digestible format. Similarly Large Hadron Collider summarises a huge number of scientific articles and papers into something more easily interpretable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Tony is obnoxiously expressing his personal opinion that consistently fails to achieve consensus. You can compare the diagrams to the actual photos of real trains to satisfy yourself if you must. There is certainly an argument that source links should be provided, or the image information page should link to a true photograph of an equivalent car, but I honestly have no idea what you or Tony would consider a "source" for this. The purpose of technical drawings is to simplify complex items into key details for focus and comparison, and these do it very well. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• So, no comment from @Tony May:. What's next? Any proposals for formalised action? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Someguy1221 makes a valid point that "technical drawings is to simplify complex items into key details". But Tony May is making the equally valid point that user-created imagery is inherently original research. We overlook this when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. In a diagram the simplification is so advantageous that we disregard the fact that it is one user's rendering of that which is depicted. I think Tony May is demanding higher standards of verisimilitude for the depicted rail transport stock. I don't know if they have a valid point about that or not, but I believe that the principle on which their argument rests is entirely valid—however they will have to accept consensus which considers these user-created images to be adequate for inclusion in the relevant articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• But this thread is not about the quality of the contributions, it's about Tony's responses to them.

We have had a (pretty reasonable) series of threads on how to select the "best" photographs of those available. We haven't had anything similar on images such as this – maybe we should. But when the response to anyone is couched in the sort of terms that Tony keeps using, any sort of collaborative project breaks down (Tony has driven multiple editors away from this work already). That needs to stop. We can talk about the quality issues later, but we have to talk about them, not just harangue and belittle others. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say no action at this time beyond a general reminder to play nice. You were right to bring this to ANI though, and may in fact have prevented escalation. Almond Plate (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Andy brought it here for escalation, instead of following normal dispute resolution within the project. He's done that to me, too. Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• So @Tony May: is editing again, but still ignoring this thread. He's also back to edit-warring over images Talk:British Rail D0260. Any suggestions? (as I'm a bit too INVOLVED here). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  He does seem a bit rude about how he presses his point, but not to the level of needing admin intervention. Why don't you formulate a neutral RFC question about the so-called "fan art" items and document the community consensus instead of just bickering? Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well as you're much less involved than I am, how about you formulating it? (a serious suggestion, BTW).

My AGF was stretched thin by his behaviour towards Moylesy, but when I realised that our resident photographic expert hadn't uploaded a single one of his own photographs, it snapped altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a try, at the project talk page. Can you send me pointers to the most relevant article examples, livery galleries, or whatever? And a list of involved editors to notify? Mind if I find the caps in "Livery Details" while I'm at it? Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days so missed most of this WP:DRAMA. I'm disappointed by Andy's actions, but I don't want to take an antagonistic approach towards them. I'm saddened by his antagonsitic approach, which is far too WP:DRAMA. I'm not angry. I don't upload my own photos, there are reasons for that which I don't want to discuss publicly, but I have uploaded many good photos from flickr to Wikimedia Commons. I would be prepared to discuss photographs using appropriate technical terms if anyone wants to test my knowledge and WP:COMPETENCE. That is all I have to say here. There has been some good discussion at WP:VP(P) - and then there is this. Tony May (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Antagonistic? I'm not the one telling people, "Firstly I don't need to make you look like a "shit photographer" - you're managing that all by yourself on Flickr." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If either of you is inclined to do something productive instead of playing in the mud here, please help complete what I started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#(draft)_RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Welp, FWIW, there's a WP:BLPN post languishing that could use some eyes.-- Dlohcierekim 18:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC on the underlying questions is now open at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Some eyes from outside the project might be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note that a new thread is now at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Main_photo_question Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(content below relocated as irrelevant to the proposal Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

• Elsewhere, editors are discussing points I have raised like adults. And there is this.
• Hampering my ability to edit the articles I mostly edit is largely pointless
• In order to select images that are good I need to make value judgements about images. Most people are not photographers, and don't understand how to take useful photos, I understand this.
• I have raised the sockpuppet point individually with Andy on his talk page, - I consider it a minor side issue - and await his input.
• I have made many good contributions, which include sorting out image choice on many articles, ironically which Andy admits he mostly agrees with.
• I admit that I accidentally may have insinuated that another editor (who's now got banned) was a "shit photographer" - after trying to deal patiently with this editor, his WP:VANITY, and lack of skill with a camera. Note this comment was made after he had suggested that I had personally attacked him and called him a "shit photographer" - which at that stage I had not. I should have phrased this more politely. If I have got frustrated with any other editors, at previous points, I regret this.

Again, I'm not angry, just trying to improve articles and clarify policy where clarification seems needed. Tony May (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't keep moving this to below the proposal. If you want to oppose all, just say that.

But this is clearly the threaded discussion which belongs here, and which you haven't previously replied to.

You have made many excellent edits to mainspace and have selected many images for good reasons, and for reasons which you have helped to codify, for which we thank you. But you can't keep making personal sleights on other editors like this, and which you still keep doing. If other editors think that needs a formal restriction to avoid it, then that's what's likely to happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid this page like the plague, but something about this caught my interest. Tony May, you know, I am a shitty photographer. Just not my specialty. Rarely if only by accident would any of my pictures ever win me some award for artistic achievement. My talent has always been in writing, or so I'm told. I've had a great deal of experience in writing non-fiction, and that is what I try to bring to the table. My photographic endeavors are purely to give a visual aid to the reader, to help explain what the text is talking about, and that is often where some real imagination comes in handy. A picture really is worth a thousand words, and can really help clarify what the text is talking about. However, a crappy picture that is informative is worth a thousand beautiful, artsy pictures that don't show squat of what the text means.

Art is very subjective, One person's art may be another's eyesore. What is far more important in a non-fiction realm like this is objectivity. None of my pictures are really that good, yet they can be found in everything from books to scientific studies to magazines to blogs, so they must be serving some greater purpose.

What particularly caught my eye was the notion that editor-drawn images are somehow inferior to photographs, which I think is particularly wrong. There are many, many instances of very good drawings and graphs created by editors, which often cannot be photographed. (Let's face it, no camera has ever been made that can match what the eye sees, and even that has its limitations.) Some drawings definitely need sourcing, such as this. Others can give the reader a very good visual of processes or internal structures that are hard if not impossible to photograph, based on a plethora of sources and their non-free illustrations already found in the articles, such as this or this. Some users may create their own graphs using the same NIST traceable instruments used by reliable sources, such as this one. Others might come along and take the same readings using their own crude instruments, like this, then combine the two, both adding a little color to the image and verifying the results, such as this. Last but not least, people may create images out of their own imagination, based upon records or other forms of data, like this and other useful pictures created by this artist.

Lastly, and I mean this to help, your arguments are full of many logical fallacies, not the least of which is argument from authority. You may have some good reasons for picking a certain image over another (for example, lede images are often subjected to much greater artistic scrutiny that images in the body), but you're going about it in the wrong way. Both I and people like Andy here tend to be very straight-forward --often to the point of being blunt-- but there are much better and more friendly ways to tell someone their work is not up to par rather than "you suck". And in some cases, such as this edit, the crappier image is much more informative than the higher quality one. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

• In the light of Tony choosing to ignore this thread, I don't think there's much likelihood of agreement with him over anything. It has been suggested that this thread might act as "a general reminder to play nice." What we've actually seen instead is:

• Edit-warring at Lion to remove an infobox image [1] [2] (stemming from an edit in March [3])
• sockpuppeting allegations against @Bow1s53:
• As always, he keeps throwing around terms like "fundamentally dishonest" and "we can now get rid of this particularly bad photo". Clearly this ANI thread has had zero influence.

So, proposal time:

1. TBAN from editing the subject of image links in mainspace
2. 1RR from the above
3. TBAN from discussing choice of image or image quality in any space
4. TBAN from disparaging comments to other editors or their edits, re: image choice or images uploaded here or at Commons, or even to other sites, such as Flickr, where these uploads are identifiably those of WP editors.

• I would support 1,2,4 but not yet 3 at this time (although I feel I might come to regret that). 4 ought to be implicit on all editors anyway, but clearly it needs to be spelled out. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• I would support 1 and 4 - Even with 1RR I feel he would be disruptive. Jeni ^(talk) 15:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all. This proposal is unjustly one-sided and based on an assumption of bad faith. What I see is editwarring by Andy Dingley (while clearly wrong), and various uncivil comments by Andy on Talk:British Rail D0260. This I find very disappointing. Users are allowed to comment on the quality of a photo, too, and to ask how a dormant editor suddenly arrived in the middle of a discussion to side with Andy is not entirely illogical. Just in case: Andy, please be aware that imposing 1RR on an opponent in a content dispute doesn't mean that you are free to win all arguments by reverting twice. Almond Plate (talk) 22:07, 22 August

• Oppose. I think the phrase "shit photographer" should not upset us overly. In a dispute clear ommunication is important. I'm not in favor of incivility but I'm also not in favor curtailing clear communication. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

1. Editors will not add images to British railway articles, specifically models, livery diagrams and other images not depicting the topic of the article (i.e. the real train), or keep them, unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Almond Plate (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Almond Plate (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose clearly a ridiculous suggestion. One step away from suggesting that editors don't edit the pages at all! Jeni ^(talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Wiki Facts fixer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Wiki Facts fixer has a long history of changing the nationalities of sports players to reflect his very narrow view of who is allowed to be an American or European. A few examples: on Sinan Gümüş, on Bobby Dixon and on Mesut Özil. He clearly believes is it not possible for people from certain countries to be nationals of America, Germany etc. These edits are constantly reverted and his talk page is a long list of complaints about this specific behavior. I came across him today making a similar edit to Ekpe Udoh where he changed the long-standing description of Udoh from American to Nigerian. I sourced Udoh being American to a New York Times article [4] but User:Wiki Facts fixer continues to revert me with unsourced or poorly sourced changes. There is a long exchange on my talk page about this. As far as I can tell this user is pushing a particular and narrow view of nationality through unsourced edits and original research (see the edit summary of his latest revert). See also this edit to Orkun Kökçü and this unsourced change to Nigeria national basketball team. Note the personal attack in that last edit summary. I don't believe we need this nationalist agenda-pusher on Wikipedia. Railfan23 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What nationalist agenda, I sourced all my content relevant to Udoh and Orkun Kökçü, it is IN the article of Kökçü that he has CHOSEN Turkey do he is considered TURKISH like Udoh is in the Nigerian National team so he is NIGERIAN...YOU are the one pushing an agenda!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Tell me what I did wrong with Ali Muhammed ?? I CORRECTED the spelling of his name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC) You say you sourced Udoh but with an OLD article, my article was from FIBA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It is literally stated on Wikipedia if they PLAY for a NATIONAL TEAM they are considered that NATIONALITY look at Fenerbahçe basketball roster “players may have a SECOND nationality”!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What personal attack?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"Railfan23 are you insane?" is a very clear personal attack. Please read: WP:NPA. Railfan23 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

FIBA is poorly sourced? Give me a break, it is the official international basketball association liken Fifa for football! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Railfan23 has continuously threatened me to be blocked or reported etc when my edits to Kökçü and Udoh are correct and sourced, isn’t threatening me a personal attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Facts fixer, you need to understand that nationality/citizenship is a legal status. It does not change merely because someone plays a sport for another country. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

See also these edits to the Moussaka article. [5] Wiki Facts fixer is clearly here to push an agenda. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Further evidence of POV-pushing: [6][7], and see this edit summary "Ethnicity determines a person not his birthplace". [8] 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Wiki Facts fixer has now violated WP:3RR on Ekpe Udoh. Could we get an admin intervention, please? Railfan23 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What is your intention, explain what I have done to you for you to have an agenda to get me banned, you are the one vandalising his page not me! You have threatened me but I don’t report you but your agenda is against me more than what I’ve done. I have done nothing wrong and it is a straight fact that the nationality is in line with the national team choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You are evidently stalking me because you are finding obscure things from the past, one tiny yet factual edit on mussaka and you complain, to even find that you have stalked me as it is irrelevant to sport and it is long ago and it is true that the dish comes from Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 01:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You are reporting me because of the Ekpe Udoh edit, all the past edits are irrelevant

I have sourced all my edits on Ekpe Udoh’s page and finally they are factual - he plays for Nigeria. So you should be arguing about Udoh NOT about past things from MANY MONTHS ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 01:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

And what I said is NOT a personal attack but both of you two THREATENING me IS a personal attack!

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out that almost your entire editing history seems to revolve around making POV-pushing edits regarding the nationality of sports players is not a personal attack. Pointing out that you have been repeatedly told to stop is not a personal attack. And pointing out that nationality isn't determined by who you play a sport for (or by ethnicity for that matter) isn't a personal attack. As for your edit to the Moussaka article, how exactly did you determine the 'facts' that enabled you to decide that the photo was of Turkish Mussaka rather then Greek Moussaka? Are you seriously suggesting you can determine the 'nationality' of a dish served all around the eastern Mediterranean from a photograph? The person who uploaded the photo labelled it as 'food from Greece' [9], and I see no reason to assume otherwise. Regardless of where the dish originated, if the uploader says this example is Greek, why should we doubt it? 86.143.227.147 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've filed an SPI based on some correlations between a few editors. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki Facts fixer Frood 05:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban on nationality/ethnicity/citizenship

I propose a topic ban on nationality/ethnicity/citizenship. That way we can see if Wiki Facts fixer is able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. If his edits even outside of that parameter are likewise disruptive, then he will probably end up blocked. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Argument about article content which isn't directly related to the TBAN discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.fiba.basketball/downloads/v3_expe/agen/docs/3-ELIGIBILITY-NATIONAL-STATUS-of-%20PLAYERS.pdf Here is evidence to what I have been saying it says: “In order to play for the national team of a country, a player must hold the legal nationality of that country, and have fulfilled also the conditions of eligibility according to the FIBA Internal Regulations.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC) The following sentence states "Any player with two legal nationalities or more, by birth or by naturalisation, may choose at any age the national team for which he wishes to play". Which is why even WP:OR wouldn't entitle someone to assert that a person didn't hold a nationality other than that of the team for which they played. Not that it matters, since interpreting FIBA rules to determine nationality is WP:OR, and contrary to policy. Find a source (complying with (WP:RS) that explicitly states that the specific person being discussed no longer holds a nationality before removing it. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC) So there is no justification for me to be blocked, only they should be for harassing me and vandalising my sourced fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talk • contribs) 02:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support That's a good proposal, thank you User:Softlavender. Railfan23 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, concur that the proposal would be a good way to see if the editor can contribute usefully outside of the contentious area. Considering that the editor can't seem to drop the stick (as seen above) and that the username plus behavior strongly suggest something like WP:RGW or POV-pushing, I'm not optimistic, but let's give them some rope. creffett (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support, though I don't expect much notice to be taken of an IP. For what its worth, I think it might be more productive if rather than topic-banning Wiki Facts fixer, he/she were instead blocked until such time as evidence could be provided that they have read WP:OR and WP:RS, and that they understand the necessity to comply with such policies. I suspect a topic ban will only move the problem elsewhere. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn;t object to an indef block as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is completely unjust to block me, however if you block me, then 86.143.227. should also be blocked as he attacked me. All my edits to Ekpe Udoh have sufficient evidence as you can see Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC) My username now suggests things about my alleged intentions. This is crazy all I have done is source an edit to Ekpe Udoh but my username suggests something else....wow Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support an indef-block in addition to a topic-ban based on the above. It's clear Wiki Facts fixer cares more about victory than debate or collaboration. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 18:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban and wouldn't object to a block per Jéské--Jorm (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban This editor's failure to acknowledge the deep concerns about their conduct makes an indefinite block likely unless they correct course quickly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. I was going to stay out of this, but it's quite clear that they don't get it. Even with this discussion open, they continue making the same edits that brought them here. Frood 01:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) I have had significant interaction with Wiki Facts fixer (see "May 2019" at their Talk page, Sinan_Gümüş at their Talk page, and Tolgay Arslan discussion at my Talk page; more at different articles) and as I see it, they have been inappropriately temperamental but I see reason to assume good faith for now. At Tolgay Arslan, after being repeatedly told they needed to source a change, they tried: edit history at the article. At WP:FOOTY we assume that someone who plays for a country must hold that nationality (as well) (pinging involved FOOTY editors: @DerDFB:, @Jaellee:, @Oblow14:) and Wiki Facts Fixer was told so multiple times (examples: Revert at Kerem Demirbay, edit history at Suat Serdar, Ferdi_Kadioğlu discussion at WFf's Talk page, I'm sure there are more). I assume Wiki Facts fixer must have been surprised to receive so much opposition at Ekpe Udoh where they argued based on the player's national team allegiance. Some edits, such as those as Moussaka I find very problematic. But I am in favour of not topic-banning the user but to warn them to not show WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and to start sourcing their changes, and giving them a recommendation to stay away from this contentious topic. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"At WP:FOOTY we assume that someone who plays for a country must hold that nationality (as well)". WP:RS,WP:OR and WP:BLP apply, regardless of what WP:FOOTY says. And Wiki Facts fixer wasn't just adding a new (dual) nationality, he was attempting to erase any link to a previous nationality. See e.g. the mess he has made of the Bobby Dixon article, and the way he removed 'German-born' from the Hakan Çalhanoğlu article. These aren't just evidence of being 'inappropriately temperamental', but of having an agenda. [10] (I'm same person as 86.143.227.147 above, with dynamic IP) 86.134.76.164 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban, and indefinite block. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Argument about article content which isn't directly related to the TBAN discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No this is called consistency Bobby Dixon’s name was spelt incorrectly so I edited it to “Ali Muhammed” from “Ali Muhammad” And the reason I removed German-born is due to consistency. You never see “x born” in players so I chose to keep this consistent. For example, we do not write Brazilian born for Diego Costa or German born for Cenk Tosun etc etc. So why is it necessary information to write “German-born Turkish” if it is not consistently used in every single player. So as you can see 86.143.227. there is zero agenda, and those of the past have completely changed as you can see in my modern edits I have only edited based on national team allegiance as I have been suggested to in the past however I am now being reported for doing how I have been advised in the past. However, 86.143.227. I do recall you insulting me and implying I am uneducated, so why has this had no admin response. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I would encourage anyone reading this section to read this back-and-forth with Jayjg. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Classic WP:IDHT behvior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's not helpful to them in the least. It shows me that not only do they still not understand (I hope), but also don't want to. I do think at this point a tban is necessary if they want to avoid an indef block. We all should drop the stick because it seems they just want to argue. Nothing more is going to come out of this. Frood 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, he's also been trying to debate me; I've told him in no uncertain terms I am not interested and he persists in trying to press me. I'm just going to revert off anything else he adds to my talk page as a waste of time and tell him not to contact me if he does it again. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason I left a message on talk pages is to see your reasonings specifically to come to a more detailed understanding. What’s the point in this at all if nobody wants to speak with me about it, it just seems like nobody cares and just want me off the site rather than peacefully communicating together to come to a better understanding and go from there. The main reason why I want this is because throughout my time on Wikipedia all other pages have the same edit which I added to these players and I have always been told by other users that I must edit in this way back when I used to get in trouble for disruptively editing pages many months ago when I didn’t have a good enough understanding of what is the norm on Wikipedia. So this is the reason I want to talk, not to start an argument but to have discussion over what I have always been told to do - it’s only fair if both sides a thoroughly heard. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I urge you all to put yourself in my shoes - yes I used to disruptively edit but that’s because I had no idea how this website worked - then users told me that if I keep changing nationalities to something other than their national team allegiance I will be banned/reported and that I MUST edit nationalities in terms of who they play for. I then do this (like I did on Ekpe Udoh’s page) and another set of users tell me I will be reported and banned. But this is exactly what I was told to do by the other users. no matter what I do both sides tell me I am wrong and I will be banned. Can you see how confusing this is for me and how it is so difficult to understand. I have no clue what to do, if I edit how I have been originally advised you will try to ban me, if I edit how you guys tell me to then they will try to ban me. It is very confusing and doesn’t make sense because of this. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Then provide evidence. A link showing exactly where you were told that you must "edit nationalities in terms of who they play for". Something we can verify. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he will, because he's been doing this before anyone has ever meaningfully interacted with him. The only way his claim works is if he's a sock account of someone else. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That link you provided is exactly what I said I used to do. Cluelessly edit out of line with who they are playing with, but as you can see all got reverted back to their national teams. Look at my talk page and reverts look how many people have said they are playing for “x national team”.Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE: Based on the results of the SPI [11], and the fact that the editor has apparently done this nonsense via other accounts, and the fact that he seems only to be here to troll and disrupt, I now also Support an indefinite block -- that is, a WP:CBAN -- for this editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have said that the ErrorFixor was an account I used when I lost my password to this account. Also if you look at the dates, you can see it is very old and back at the time when I was disruptively editing before I understood how this worked. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The user denied having a second account at first at their talk page. I can't find where the user disclosed their previous account. --MrClog (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I just explained to you at the investigation page why I denied it Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he says "The reason I made that account [ErrorFixor] was because I lost my password to this account [Wiki Facts fixer]", and "I had completely forgot about this account [Wiki Facts fixer] because look how old it is [it was created on 31 May 2017], but then I came across this and I recognise the account" [and apparently remembered the password]. He also said that he thought he had disclosed the second account "but when looking it seems it didn’t go through or I just have a false memory of it."

I think what we're getting from Wiki Facts fixer is very fast tap dancing which amounts to a bunch of fabulations. I now support an indef block (CBAN) with the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef ban as WP:CBAN per Softlavender. --MrClog (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban but also strongly indef block as per WP:CNH Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN I'm not seeing behavior that rises to CBAN levels, and I'm willing to forgive someone for forgetting about an account which only made a half-dozen edits. I disagree with Softlavender's characterization of the user as "only here to troll and disrupt," there are clearly IDHT issues here but this does not strike me as trolling or intentional disruption, just significant misunderstandings as well as stubbornness on the definition of nationality. I believe a TBAN is sufficient to deal with the problem (as I !voted above). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN: I agree with Creffett. I don't think he's been disruptive enough to warrant a site ban, but certainly a TBAN. I'd like to see him be able to contribute constructively. If the disruption continues, maybe. But for now, probably not. Frood 18:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Really?

• "Do you have a second account?"
• "No I do not have a second account."
• "What about this account which edits like you and has a similar name?"
• "Oh yeah, I made that account because I forgot the password to this account."
• "Why did you deny having a second accout?"
• "I forgot about it."
• "Did you disclose your second account?"
• I thought I did, but I must have misremembered."

And you guys still have AGF left? Socks and disruptive editors aren't required to be good at socking or disruption or dissembling about socking or disruption, all it takes to give them the heave-ho is socking and disruption. You want maybe they should take some lessons at socking and disruption and come back and be more disruptive before we shut the door on him? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't speak for Frood, but I do indeed have AGF left, because that's not socking. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm less jaded, but all I see is failure to disclose a previous account, which is certainly a suspicious act but nowhere near enough of a problem to call for a CBAN. The editor's previous account was not the subject of any adverse actions (warnings, blocks, bans, etc.) and did not operate at the same time as the current account, so there is no socking or evasion here. Like I said above, the editor is more than a little stubborn, but I only see disruptive editing in the area that we're discussing TBANning them (and they appear to have stopped editing in that area for the time being, which is also a point in their favor). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that pretty much sums up what I was thinking. The full conversation with Jayjg definitely shows that they don't get it, but I do think we should give them some rope. This would be a pretty easy tban to comply with, so if they hang themselves with it, that's on them. Frood 19:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: at least be fair here, I used that account like 4/5 months ago and I made like 5/6 edits on that account. How is that going to come straight to my mind. I forgot about the account. Furthermore I am sure I went to disclose it however like I said I’m either misremembering or my internet went down - sometimes it takes a while on here for my edits to come through - that’s the only other way it could’ve happened. I never even used that account since I got my password back for this account. I originally thought I was accused about using two accounts now. Then I opened that page and I saw that account and I remembered it (I had already said I’m not using a second account before I saw that account) I completely forgot about it. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• User talk:Jayjg#Your support for my ban is illuminating. I did my best to help, but... Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (and would not be opposed to indef block) per the big pile of IDIDNTHEARTHAT demonstrated in Jayjg's link. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, are you supporting a total site ban or just a topic ban and/or indef block? I only ask because of the and would not be opposed to indef block part. Frood 18:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, clarified. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Are we being trolled?

I see that despite the multiple posts on Wiki Facts fixer's talk page on the requirement for edits to cite sources, and despite the long discussion here on the same subject, Wiki Facts fixer has just created an entirely unsourced biography of Tarık Biberovic (basketball). One which states that "Tarık Biberovic was born in Zenica,Bosnia to Turkish parents. He was granted Turkish citizenship due to his blood relation to Turkey. He has chosen to play for the Turkish national team". And for good measure states in the infobox that his nationality is 'French'. At this point, I can see no reason to assume anything other than complete and utter incompetence combined with a total incapacity to countenance the possibility that he might ever be wrong about anything, or deliberate trolling. And I'd go with the latter. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained the situation, on three separate help pages as each time I have tried to add my sources it says “error edit not saved” instead of trying to find any form of evidence against me, I am trying to make an edit I would appreciate the help if anybody here knows how to fix this error message. Also who is French? Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see where you saw “French” basically I copied and pasted the Nando De Colo’s page and edited it to suit Tarık Biberovic. I only just realised it didn’t edit out “French” apologies. - I did this so all the set out would be correct and all I would need to change was the information (save me some time and it would look the same) Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Further evidence of either monumental cluelessness or trolling can be seen at User_talk:Wiki_Facts_fixer#Proposed_deletion_of_Tarık_Biberovic. where Wiki Facts fixer responded to a perfectly reasonable request for a source for the statement in the Biberovic biography of the article subject having 'Turkish parents' by accusing me of 'bias', along with irrelevance about me not being able to read Turkish. Irrelevant, since no source in any language was being provided. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I can’t believe this, I have literally been on a HELP PAGE to sort this issue out, why are you trying to gain every support against me for having an error however everyone else is respecting it, please just leave me alone or put something else on my talk page instead of spamming the same thing I can’t bring you something if there’s an error in my system Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking people to believe that someone capable of creating an entire correctly-formatted (if unsourced) table containing full details for the Turkish national basketball team roster [12] is incapable of posting a bare URL on a talk page? The source clearly does not exist except in your imagination. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

yes because ALL DAY I have been trying to sort this issue, we were even discussing this on my talk page and on a help page before you turned up. I get a long pause when I click publish and following this the exact message I get for my sourcing and link posting is “error edit not saved”. How many times do I need to tell you this??? Just leave me alone I don’t need to tell you 20 times. You don’t care about improving the site you want to rally against me. It’s so evident, I ask you to find out what’s wrong the the Fenerbahçe page and you say “I’m not wasting my time” if you cared about sourcing and the site being prefect you would go check, however when we look at your contributions they are all about me and my edits straight after I do them. You must be sat there refreshing my page. You care more about me than site improvements “I’m not wasting my time” literally proves this.. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) and if you look at the Turkish national team page, I needed help to fix that page aswell I didn’t do it correctly fully. I literally have only just started creating pages and making edits the size of the Turkish NT. I’m brand new to these types of edits the Turkish NT was my first one Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the name of the website where you found the information that Biberovic's parents were Turkish? 86.134.76.164 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

find it yourself, all day you’ve spammed me and told me I’m wrong when you can’t read Turkish, find the website yourself why should I “waste my time” when it’s not on Biberovic’s page anymore. You’ll only find a way to tell me I’m wrong like you have been all day for multiple things. If you respected me today instead of aggressive behaviour “i suggest you find it quickly” then I would get you it,but since you can evidently can read Turkish from how you’ve reacted today, then you are capable of finding it yourself Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not going to waste any further time looking for imaginary sources. You have repeatedly claimed to have one, but refuse to provide even the slightest evidence that it exists. It quite clearly doesn't. And nothing you have done deserves 'respect'. For that, you need to show honesty, and a willingness to cooperate with others along with a willingness to edit according to Wikipedia policies. Instead you do nothing but come up with endless pathetic excuses, and complaints about being picked on. Well yes, you are being picked on, quite rightly. Because you fail to respect Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia readers, and the people you insist on labelling by nationality despite having no evidence at all to justify it. Why should anyone 'respect' that? If you want respect, do something to earn it. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL just block, CIR, and blatant troll. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly just get off my talk page. I’m almost certain you are a Sockpuppet no account no edits except for going at me there’s no way anybody would do that. All I have done today is make a page which was missing, but you spam me all day about information which no longer exists on that page! The page has even be accepted and verified. There isn’t any other editor on here speaking to me like I am worthless and like I’m a bad person, everybody who has disagreed with me have spoke to me respectfully. You don’t care for this website you care about fighting me, go do some useful edits. I made a page that was missing, at this rate I would vote myself out of here an entire day of being spammed and constant notifications is a JOKE!!! How dare you say I can’t cooperate when all day you’ve been the one attacking and harassing me, get off my talk page. You talk about policies, Wikipedia says when people have made errors on their page when they’re new to it to not use it against them and to assist them something to have NOT been doing! You don’t even edit anything how are you not bored refreshing my page for these last few days waiting for me to do something else - look at the state of your contribution section! Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m now a troll for CREATING A MISSING PAGE THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. USERS EVEN ACCEPTED THIS PAGE. Honestly if spamming my account is what this takes then just block me, my first ever page creation and this is how I am treated honestly why should even bother with an account, you may aswell ban me anything I do is challenged and I’m sick of the spam. I might just deactivate my own account, I’m sick of being spammed when it’s my first attempt at creating a page Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Creating a needed article isn't trolling. Doing exactly what you have been told not to do, repeatedly, by multiple contributors, certainly looks like trolling though. You were told, multiple times, that when you state someone's nationality in an article, you need a source. You created an article, stating that Biberovic's parents were Turkish, and provided no source, despite repeatedly claiming to have one. From your recent post on your talk page, it is apparent that at no time have you ever had such a source [13] Instead, you have based the edit on exactly the original research that you have been repeatedly told isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. That isn't 'cooperation', it is either trolling, or a sheer inability to understand a simple requirement. So yes, I suggest you 'deactivate' your account, and take your obsession with imposing Turkish nationality on people based on the flimsiest of evidence elsewhere. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have already sourced his Turkish nationality and it has been accepted what an earth are you on about.... Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

how was your Saturday was it enjoyable refreshing my page? Or should I ask how was your week you’re a Sockpuppet, sat there all week refreshing my page. Enjoy yourself, watch some TV, who am I to you. I was supposed to be enjoying my Saturday with my family however I’ve had my entire day being spammed by you with constant notifications, every single person assisted me and nobody acted like this, that point was removed long ago and his Turkish nationality is sourced....100% you are a Sockpuppet Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My obsession with Turkish nationality??? This whole page is relevant to UDOH and his NIGERIAN/AMERICAN nationality. But you stalk me so much you harass my first page and claim I’m obsessed. Since Tolgay Arslan find me any inaccurate Turkish nationality, Toglay Arslan was my first proper edit. Sockpuppet....Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone reading this train-wreck should note that the Tarık_Biberovic article cites only two sources for anything. One of the sources cited states that he is of Turkish nationality, [14] while the other [15] says 'BIH' - which is the conventional abbreviation for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps he has taken Turkish nationality. Or perhaps he has the nationality one might expect from his place of birth. Perhaps he has dual nationality. Without properly-sourced clarification, the article shouldn't say one way or another. Though I doubt that Wiki Facts fixer would be happy with that, given his obsession with imposing Turkish nationality on the flimsiest of evidence. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed

I have read the above thread, and looked over WikiFactChecker's contributions, as well as the SPI. There is much concerning content there. I am not going to render any decision as to whether there is community support for a ban (either total or topic), nor will I close the above discussion in case the community wants to come to a consensus. Rather, I have chosen to unilaterally indef WFC for this edit. It did occur several months ago, but it is the type of edit (actually several edits, and a revert or two) that should be tolerated exactly zero times. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that 20 minutes after Wiki Fact Fixer was indefed, a new account User:Cold Mustard was created and started editing Tarık Biberovic to put back some of Wiki Fact Fixer's edits. I've created a Sockpuppet investigation for this case, but it seems very likely to me that this is the same user. Railfan23 (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name-removing disruptive user from St. Petersburg

Maybe this is common knowledge already, but a user on various dynamic IPs that geolocate to St. Petersburg has been systematically removing names from a large number of biography articles, despite numerous warnings and reverts. The name is removed from the beginning of sentences, often in the "Early life" section, typically changing for example "Anderson was born in..." to simply "Was born in...", leaving a grammatically incorrect sentence fragment with no subject. Names are also removed from photo captions. They don't seem to do anything else but this.

There have been many warnings for vandalism and disruption: User talk:178.70.168.215, User talk:91.122.184.163, User talk:178.70.36.51, etc., that have been ignored. I haven't found any blocks, but they rarely make more than a few edits from one IP.

Recent IPs include: Special:Contributions/178.70.30.163 (today), Special:Contributions/92.100.80.238, Special:Contributions/92.101.206.160, Special:Contributions/78.37.161.147, Special:Contributions/178.66.212.9, and many others. The edits go back at least to 2018, and possibly as far as 2016 or earlier: Special:Contributions/178.70.46.116.

I've been searching for insource:"early life was born" or insource:"biography was born", etc., and reverting those, but it doesn't catch them all. I've found many of the older edits have not been cleaned up in the past. Not sure what else can be done, blocks or rangeblocks I guess aren't feasible. Maybe some kind of edit filter or tag to help flag them could be implemented? --IamNotU (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would try asking at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. It sounds like an edit filter that caught the change from " was born" to "Was born" would work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

But that wouldn't catch similar edits like this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a chance that the user's simply not familiar with our style? The Russian Wikipedia uses a very different style for biographies that's not pure prose; I picked a random Russian philosopher and ended up at Fyodor Shcherbatskoy, whose Russian article begins as follows:

Extended content

Russian original: Фёдор Ипполи́тович Щербатско́й (Щербатский) (19 сентября[2] 1866, Кельце, Царство Польское — 18 марта 1942, Боровое, Акмолинская область, Казахская ССР) — русский и советский востоковед (буддолог, индолог и тибетолог), академик Российской академии наук (1918). Один из основателей русской школы буддологии. Перевёл и издал ряд памятников санскритской и тибетской литературы. Почётный член научных обществ Великобритании, Германии, Франции. Google Translate rendition of original: Fedor Ippolitovich Shcherbatsky (Shcherbatsky) (September 19, 1866, Kielce, Kingdom of Poland - March 18, 1942, Borovoye, Akmola Oblast, Kazakh SSR) - Russian and Soviet orientalist (Buddhist, Indologist and Tibetologist), academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1918). He translated and published a number of monuments of Sanskrit and Tibetan literature. Honorary member of the scientific societies of Great Britain, Germany, France.

Also, Russian is a Pro-drop language, in which one generally doesn't include a pronoun that's implied by the verb. (That article gives an example of good Russian sentences — six words, "I see him. He is coming.", are needed to translate the Russian "Вижу. Идёт.") In such a case, "Was born in X." would make sense when we're talking about a specific individual who's the subject of the article, if you're unintentionally importing your own language's grammar/syntax/etc. into English. So maybe this person's just trying to follow ru:wp style without understanding that we don't write that way. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I see such edits on my watchlist pretty regularly. Typically they are made by users whose native language is Russian and who have limited command in English. Note also that in Russian encyclopedias it is pretty common to drop the subject (for example, an article on XXX would say Born in YYY year, not XXX was born in YYY year), and machine translation (which is still unfortunately often used, would provide exactly this.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's true that missing pronouns are a common mistake made by Russian speakers writing in English. But this is clearly one person on Rostelecom in St. Petersburg, who has obsessively, robotically, made the same idiosyncratic name-removing edit to probably hundreds of biography articles, for years, and it seems to be the only edit they ever make. It's often very indiscriminate, e.g.: [16] or [17]. There have been many final warnings for disruption and vandalism, but they can't be reached. One warning said: "Stop doing this. If you don't understand why your edits are being undone then you are not competent to edit in English. If you do,understand, then this is vandalism.", which I think sums it up. Whatever is going on in their mind, from malicious to clueless, is not so important - the relentless edits are harmful and disruptive. If they had an account, a stable IP, or a narrow IP range, they would have been blocked long ago for disruption, failure to communicate, and "not here".

Since neither talking nor blocking seem possible, I wondered if there was some more effective alternative to be able to prevent, flag, or search for the unhelpful edits. The normal search can find many, but it's rather limited. It seems like something that would lend itself to an automated approach, since the edits have a distinctive pattern, but I don't know that much about what's possible in that way. I can look into requesting an edit filter. --IamNotU (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering... if whoever does this is Russian, could providing a Russian translation of the warnings help them understand? Diamond Blizzard talk 17:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've left warnings on the talk page of this morning's IP, saying "Хватит удалять имена из биографий! Stop removing names from biographies!". I would think that if they're able to navigate English Wikipedia well enough to make these edits, they'd be capable of putting the warnings into Google Translate themselves, but I suppose it's worth a try. I've also changed the section title here from "vandal" to "disruptive user", since it's possible they believe they're helping.

I've been doing some more cleanup, and it looks like there are actually possibilities for blocks on these ranges for the most recent edits: Special:Contributions/78.37.160.0/20 and Special:Contributions/92.100.80.0/20; those seem to contain all their edits out of the /16 ranges, and almost exclusively theirs since January. The other ranges I've found them in are these, not sure yet if there might be narrower ranges within them:

• Special:Contributions/91.122.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/92.100.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/92.101.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/178.66.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/178.67.0.0/16
• Special:Contributions/178.70.0.0/16

There really are hundreds of these same edits, and it's continuing on a daily basis. It also looks like they might sometimes make small edits to articles about cartoons, e.g. Special:Contributions/178.70.28.51, though so far I can't tell for sure if it's the same person. --IamNotU (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can start us off with range blocks on the /20s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

After skimming through the /16s listed above, the IP ranges where I see this editor active are:

• Special:Contributions/91.122.96.0/20 (last obvious subject-removal edit in April 2019)
• Special:Contributions/91.122.176.0/20 (July 2019)
• Special:Contributions/92.101.192.0/20 (August 2019)
• Special:Contributions/92.101.224.0/20 (August 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.66.64.0/20 (June 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.67.128.0/20 (July 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.16.0/20 (August 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.32.0/20 (July 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.64.0/20 (June 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.160.0/20 (July 2019)
• Special:Contributions/178.70.208.0/20 (February 2019)

Assuming, of course, that the ISP breaks things down into /20s, which seems entirely possible. I range blocked a few more that have been active recently and have very little apparent collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the blocks, and for pointing out the sub-ranges, that should make cleaning it up easier! --IamNotU (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, today they're back on Special:Contributions/178.67.181.183, so I guess, Special:Contributions/178.67.176.0/20? There were also some edits there in May. --IamNotU (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP a few days, which might be enough. Given of the lack of disruption on other IPs from that range, I have to wonder if maybe I was wrong. I guess we'll see, but I really hope it's not randomly spread throughout /16s and /17s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

They were back today, from Special:Contributions/178.70.160.0/20 again. It looks like their IP changes once (and only once) a day, so no point in blocking individual ones I guess. Each day they can jump between any of the seven /16s (or not). But within those, I don't think it's totally random. I've only found them on one or two /20s in each, except for the last one 178.70.*, there are several. For example though, there's another very prolific IP who does Indian film related edits in the same /16s, but I don't think I've seen them on the same /20. But I could be seeing patterns that aren't really there... --IamNotU (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock Request

Hi,

We're getting a hoard of IPs making extremely similar edits to The Fighter and the Kid. I've put in a RFPP (now handled), but I was wondering whether someone skilled with rangeblocks could take a look and see if there's anything they can do on their side to make sure the editor side of the issue is handled.

History link

IPs:

1. 82.39.250.181
2. 2600:100C:B021:6287:7934:57C5:BBC3:B830
3. 192.197.178.2
4. 170.232.227.220
5. 2602:306:CFD1:6310:6C6E:1F09:E951:49E7

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately those IPs are all off on their own — they don't form any ranges, and they're all over the map — US, Canada, the UK. The article has now been semiprotected for a week, so I hope they get bored. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC).

Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP editor User:68.50.40.47 is removing sourced material from this article without a consensus to do so. The material has been discussed on the talk page, with some interest in altering or rewriting it in some way (see this), but there was definitely no consensus to remove it. I notified that IP on both my and their talk page that they need a consensus to remove sourced material. But they went ahead and removed it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Usually we have an escalating set of warnings we give new editors, rather than jumping straight to final warning and AN/I. Try that instead, and maybe elicit some talk along the way? Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly not a new editor, don't be silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP admits here that they started editing in 2003. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The content discussion that User:Beyond My Ken cites is 5 years stale and ended due to a lack of interest. If my Bold edit re-ignites an interest in that discussion, I welcome it. But so far User:Beyond My Ken has only edit warred and has specifically refused to participate in that discussion. There is no interest in having the discussion, and the material that I removed is facially incorrect. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, BRD: You make a BOLD edit, I REVERT it, then you start a DISCUSSION in order to get a consensus for your bold edit. Please go start that discussion, so that other editors of the page can decide whether they agree with your edit. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the article stays in the status quo ante while discussions take place, so before you start the discussion you need to have please revert your last edit and leave the article as it was for the last 5 years, before you ulilatreally decided it was "unambiguously wrong" [18] and deleted it, despite it being sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Here's the way the IP interprets the situation on their talk page:

  I can't believe some dickhead wanted to edit war with me but thought he would win despite expressing a consistent disinterest in discussing the material. Went so far as to repeatedly tell me that editing without discussion is wrong, but wouldn't relent on his insistence on not discussing. The point of wikipedia is the content. If you don't care about the content, don't edit. Someone who cares about the content may someday come along and reverse my edits, and add to the discussion. I may lose the discussion. I think that'll be lame but at least it'll compatible with BRD. [19]

  So, in the IP's point of view, they can delete anything they want from any article, as long as they know that it's wrong, and not be responsbile for discussing it when they're challenged. Maybe, someday, someone will come along who they'll agree to discuss it with, but in the meantime their edit stays in place. And that, they believe, is consonant with BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel like I'm repeating myself, so sorry to waste anyone's time.... If someone challenges one of my edits on content grounds I am eager to listen, and willing to accept that such a challenge may prevail even if I disagree with it. That hasn't happened here. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for the personal attack. Feel free to revert the IP's addition and bring the article to the state where it was; however, the IP has joined discussions on the talk page that you started. Once they are unblocked, encourage those discussions. If the IP edit wars again, please come back. Thanks, Lourdes 06:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• @Oshwah, Lourdes, and 331dot: Unfortunately, I have to reopen this. The IP, 68.50.40.47, which was blocked by Lourdes for 31 hours, and had the block extended to 2 weeks by 331dot, claimed on their talk page to have the sccount User:Galexander. [20]. If that is true, then the editor who was using that IP has now signed on and has edited as Galexander. They left a comment on Talk:Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) [21], and then deleted a comment of mine on the same page [22]. The deletion is, of course, a violation of WP:TPO, but the comment creates the illusion that there are two different people in the discussion, the IP and Galexander. Galexander even referred to the IP in the third person. Both of the edits are, obviously, block evasion, since the block is for the editor, and not the IP/account.
  Of course, the IP could have been dissembling in saying that Galexander is their account, so it may be necessary for a CheckUser for verify that. Because of that I am tagging this as Checkuser needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Post-closing, I have struck one of my comments above, as it was in error, and I don't want the record to be incorrect. Galexander did not delete one of my comments, he deleted a comment they made while editing as an IP, which had a very similar opening to a comment of mine later on the page. I regret the error, and have apologized to Galexander on their talk page. So there was no violation of P:TPO but the rest of my comment stands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• In an abundance of caution, even though I'm fairly certain that Galexander is the IP editor, I have notified Galexander of this report on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• I',m sorry, I should also have pinged Deepfriedokra, who was involved in turning down the IPs first unblock request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Block evasion confirmed noting their admission to their account. Respective blocks reset to one month.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Thanks for re-opening this discussion and for letting us know about the account. I'm glad that the issue was quickly handled. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi! 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57. The IP address 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57 (talk) got the new messages up from the talk page! 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57 (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As well as message posted like this:

Hello, I'm Sakura Cartelet. An edit that you recently made to C19H15Cl2O4 seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Per this message, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

The main part of the warning was this edit which looked like a test edit to me. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop nominating pages for speedy deletion unless they actually meet the criteria listed at WP:CSD. The redirects you nominated did not fit the categories of nonsense, vandalism (except the edits done by you) or uncontroversial maintenance, respectively. Thanks. decltype (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is also rather strange and alarming that this user created the redirect Draft:Harassing Hell, then went on to nominate it at RfD (Special:Diff/912386959), place a notice of said RfD on their talkpage (Special:Diff/912386592), and !vote twice in the RfD. This ANI thread also appears to be initiated by this user, who again placed a notification template on their talkpage (Special:Diff/912385823). Is this a test in enacting process, or is it a novel form of intended humor or disruptive editing? ComplexRational (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: This section was made by the ip editor above copy/pasting the conversation on their talk page here. This was not someone bringing this issue here, this was an ip editor showing gross incompetence by copy/pasting their talk page onto ANI. I don't know what you're expecting to happen. 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57#August_2019 Also they were blocked for 3 months so... case closed? 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRN referral ~ editor User:Barwick, behavioral issues ~ Not here to build an encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I add the closing recommendations from the DRN referring the user here;

"In looking into this filing it has become clear there is no dispute but there was disruption and an admittance by the filing editor of simply trying to make a point. DRN referral to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is recommended for User:Barwick for the following behavioral issues; Disruptive editing on the talk page and article as well as disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, continued violations of the talk page guidelines, possible attempt to game the system and not being here to build an encyclopedia."

On 22 August 2019 User:Barwick initiated a DRN filing for the article Oath Keepers dif and listed a number of other editors that turned out to have nothing to do with an actual content dispute but seemed to be entirely Barwick edit warring by continuously re-opening a closed edit request that had been denied 1, 2, 3 and 4.

User:Acroterion left a warning about sanctions imposed on post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related articles [23]. Barwick then received a warning from user:Deacon Vorbis about the talk page being for discussion of improving the article and not the general discussion of the topic.[24] He then received a note from user:Doug Weller, again about discretionary sanctions.[25] He next received another warning from user:Drmies for NOTFORUM. [26]. Barwick's response was; "I suggest you stop threatening me with wikipedia warnings and all your wikipedia rules. I spend virtually zero of my life dealing with the sea of rules on this website. So people like you threatening me with random consequences for something I have no clue what in the world those "notices" even mean, really doesn't scare me." [27]

In the DRN User:Robert McClenon asked the editor if this was a "One against the many" dispute where Barwick's reply admitted to simply trying to make a point; "This is in essence many people very unfamiliar with Wikipedia (myself included) attempting to make a point to people familiar with Wikipedia. Those familiar with Wikipedia have accurately pointed out that Wikipedia uses "reliable sources". I have pointed out to them that this is in fact impossible to do for two reasons. 1) Oath Keepers is a small enough organization that no major media bothers replying to slander about them (which accusing them of being "anti-Government" is). And 2) Claiming that in lieu of "reliable sources", I must then prove that they are not "anti-Government", effectively asking me to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible to do (I'm a computer scientist, trust me, I know logic proofs)".

While Barwick has been with Wikipedia as a registered editor since 2005, he has less than 400 edits. I make no recommendation as to how to discourage this behavior only that this venue is the correct noticeboard for this issue and editor. Thank you and Aloha!--Mark Miller (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I had assumed that User:Barwick was acting in good faith but being tendentious,as is the case with some DRN filers, and was trying to use DRN to continue to argue their case after being in the minority. But it seems that Barwick didn't really want to resolve a dispute, even stubbornly. Now that Barwick is here, were they trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, or were they trolling? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

My view is similar to Robert McClenon's, that Barwick is a sincere but tendentious editor. This isn't an unusual circumstance, where new or infrequently active editors show up to argue that a fringe group's self-description is to be accepted without question in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the kind of sources that Wikipedia explicitly relies upon - we see that on many articles about the extremes of politics, 9/11-related topics, Gamergate-related and others. Barwick's editing history shows periodic events of this kind, such as arguments about pseudoscience, Obama's birth, abortion, and ozone depletion. I was going to propose a politics topic ban, but given their history I'm not convinced that that will help. Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Miller: I've notified Barwick of this discussion. Please don't forget to do that when you start an ANI thread about someone. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I knew I was forgetting something ~ notifications.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This appears to be basically the same set of arguments that Barwick used when they were last active on Wikipedia, in this discussion from 8 years ago. Barwick is in effect arguing, again, that because the consensus of high quality mainstream scientific and media sources does not align with their personal beliefs, that all of the many sources are biased, despite not being able to provide any suitable sources whatsoever to back up their own point of view. The "point" they're trying to prove is incompatible with the purpose of an encyclopedia. There's nothing special about this case, they're simply not here to build an encyclopedia but to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to advocate their own beliefs. I was about to block them indefinitely, but per Acroterion's note above which I conflicted with, I'll leave this for others' input. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, they do seem to have a knack for finding topics to argue about that have discretionary sanctions associated with them - perhaps not tree-shaping, but four five others. Based in my review of their history, more than 80% of their edits have involved the problems Ivanvector has pointed out, and it is my impression that they're only here to argue. Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)0

• "I spend virtually zero of my life dealing with the sea of rules on this website. So people like you threatening me with random consequences for something I have no clue what in the world those "notices" even mean, really doesn't scare me"--that's enough evidence for a block per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Right. I have topic banned the user indefinitely from tree shaping American politics, without prejudice to further discussion of an indefinite block. It's not time to close this section yet. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC).
• I was just on my way to indef Barwick as NOTHERE when I spotted 'Shonen's indefinite topic ban from post 1932 American politics. Thinking about it, that's probably equivalent, so I don't see any point in further considerations. One of us can always apply the indef when they next edit and violate the topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a topic ban (or indef) wouldn't be inappropriate, but I don't recall a topic ban ever being implemented without community discussion. Is there precedent for this? GiantSnowman 21:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Topic bans by one uninvolved administrator are a feature of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Indefs without community discussion are done all the time for vandals, etc. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

My own interpretation of this user is that they are more like a troll than like a POV-warrior. Just my opinion. Do not feed them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a topic ban per ArbCom discretionary sanctions, Giant, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. They're given out per the discretion of a single admin, and only in areas that ArbCom has placed under DS, in this case post-1932 American politics. Community topic bans are something else, and they do indeed require full discussion and consensus here or at AN. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: - you learn something new every day, thanks! GiantSnowman 08:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey kids, you don't have to worry about banning me, this place disgusts me... I'll copy/paste this post here also

With what minimal respect I can muster for this debacle of a webpage they call Wikipedia, the blatant bias Wikipedia has demonstrated countless times in the past against conservative viewpoints, is *the* exact reason I haven't wasted my time with this trash heap in, um... 10 years? I'm unsurprised to see it hasn't changed a bit. A bunch of liberals flaunting rules they themselves came up with to protect their ideological viewpoint from anyone who would dare have a different opinion.

"Tolerance"... of everyone except those who disagree with you. And point to the self-made rules to justify your reasoning.

Oh, and then threaten people with "sanctions" (ooooooooooh). Tell you what... stuff it, you and your webpage. I'm out of here.

(Personal attack removed). Here are the last 4 tildes I'll ever grace this place with, signing off... Barwick (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Hope you take some time and rethinkLightburst (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And with this edit, I'd say it's time to indef. - Frood (talk!) 02:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed as nothere, and looking back at his contributions it is clear that barwick has always been nothere. To be clear, the disconnect between Barwick's view of the situation and everyone else's, is that Barwick assumes that every warning he has ever received was motivated by his viewpoint and not his behavior. It's a tribal mindset that is incompatible with a collaborative project. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued disruptive editing by User:Hispalois in Catalans over the term "ethnic group"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Catalans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hispalois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Catalans is one of the hundreds of articles that exist on Wikipedia about an ethnic group, being considered a high-importance ethnic group article according to the WikiProject Ethnic Groups. Like the rest of articles on ethnic groups, it makes use of the template:Infobox ethnic group, it's categorized in the pertinent ethnic groups' categories (4 of them), it's included in the list of contemporary ethnic groups, and the lead section follows the same standard style: defining them as an ethnic group, stating the group they belong to (Romance), and what is their native land. There are hundreds of examples in Wikipedia on the same topic that are exactly the same as Catalans: Galicians, Basques, Occitans, Germans, Bretons, Swedes, Waloons, Italians, Frenchs, Sardinians, Greeks, Irish people, Scottish people, Hungarians, Poles, et cetera. The reference to "ethnic group" in Catalans is backed by numerous reliable sources present in the article, in addition to others that are not included (Encyclopædia Britannica: ethnic composition, Catalonian).

Catalans has had a long-standing stable lead section for many years, defining it as an ethnic group without disputes (see 2012 version, 2015 version or 2017 version). Rarely, a user could come to vandalize the article by deleting the word ethnic group there and in other articles, but his editions were quickly reverted (in this case, the user was banned and also his sockpuppets).

That was the case until 29 September 2018, when User:Hispalois came to the article for the first time and unilaterally deleted the words "ethnic group", among other disruptive and controversial edits that were later reverted by other users. The original version was eventually restored by several users.
However, on 28 June 2019 User:Hispalois came back doing it again. While also removing sources and insisting on other disruptive edits that other users had already reverted him in the past. Here is when I, User:Beethoven, arrived to the article for the first time. After seeing what he did, I proceeded to restore the original version (10 July 2019).

Then a discussion started between me and User:Hispalois in Talk:Catalans. At the beginning, he was only asking for sources backing the term "ethnic group" (13 July 2019): "needs to be backed by reliable sources. The book by Minahan does not use the term so it does not back up the claim. Pending new sources, I am going to add a citationrequired template to the statement on Catalans being an ethnic group. I am specifically asking for at least one reliable source that applies the term to Catalans." That same day, I fulfilled his request and added several reliable sources to the article where Catalans are identified as an ethnic group. That same day, he thanked me for my edit.

At this point, the discussion seemed over and the problem solved. But weeks later, User:Hispalois came back again doing unilateral edits on the lead section (30 July 2019). I then restored the original version, telling him that we had already discussed this in talk page weeks ago. He then argued that "the discussion was still open", so I encouraged him to expose what were now his intentions first in the talk page (8 August 2019). His argument can be summed up in that he doesn't like ethnic groups, in general. In his argument he presented his opinions about ethnic groups, exposed different definitions of ethnic groups and even presented the opinion of Max Weber about ethnicities. Even though none of this related with Catalans whatsoever. I explained to him that his opinion on ethnic groups is fine, as is that of Max Weber or other historic figures, but that this page (Catalans) is not the place to discuss all of this. His opinions or criticisms against ethnic groups could have a place in Talk:Ethnic group. He might even try to create a "Criticism section" in ethnic group to include different views about ethnicities, if he finds the sources to do so. But Catalans is not the place to discuss about opinions on ethnic groups, in the same way that it is not the place to do so in Latvians, Flemings or any other individual ethnic group. I don't know why of all the articles about ethnic groups he picked the article Catalans to start this, because his arguments had no relation with Catalans or any other particular ethnic group. Nor did he explain why Catalans should be different from the rest of ethnic groups' articles.
Then, out of nowhere, that same day he added a maintenance template on the article stating that this article's factual accuracy is disputed. That template doesn't belong here, because we are not having a dispute on the accuracy of the article nor looking for reliable sources. Because the reliable sources were added almost a month ago, when User:Hispalois asked for them and he later thanked me for including them. This issue had already been solved. So, adding this maintenance template in the article just because User:Hispalois doesn't like the word "ethnic group" doesn't show good behavior. Should we add this template in all the hundreds of articles on ethnic groups just because the word "ethnic group" is present in the article? In Sicilians, Romanians and so on? The word "ethnic group" makes one article inaccurate? Of course not.

We then continued discussing in Talk:Catalans, where I answered all his questions and addressed his other points. Until my last message in that talk page (12 August 2019). The discussion ended there and he never replied. Finally now, the discussion seemed over. Therefore, some days later I removed the maintenance template that shouldn't have been placed there in the first place (17 August 2019). However, a week later he came back once again to introduce that template in the article about the factual accuracy (24 August 2019), without bothering to say anything in talk page. Unfortunately, when doing that "Undo", he didn't even care to notice that while doing so he was also removing the edits I had made on some existing sources just to include more parameters. Yesterday I pointed all of this to him, reminding him that he had deleted text when doing that revert. I encouraged him once again to bring his opinions about ethnic groups to the pertinent place. However, today he reverted me again, without bothering to care about anything I told him.

At this point I come here because I no longer know how to deal with him. His last message in Talk:Catalans is from 12 August 2019. He's not interested in discussing anything and simply ignores what I tell him. His behavior has become really disrupting now and close to edit warring. It's clear that this user has very strong opinions about ethnic groups. And I already told him of a place where he can express his opinions, be it in a personal blog, in Wikipedia's Talk:Ethnic group or in the ethnic group article if he manages to find sources. But he simply ignores what I say, and seems obsessed with expressing his personal opinion only in Catalans. --Beethoven (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could get a tl;dr summary here? I've tried, and failed, to discern exactly what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

TL;DR: User:Hispalois doesn't like the word "ethnic group" being in the article Catalans, because he doesn't like the general concept/existence of ethnic groups. Since September 2018, he has been removing it from the article multiple times. And every time he removed it, his version was reverted by other users, thus restoring the original version (with the word "ethnic group") which has a years-long-standing consensus and follows the same style as the other ethnic groups articles (which obviously include that word). Recently, he has continued to insist on imposing his opinion, while resorting to a more clear disruptive-editing-behavior and edit-warring. He doesn't bother to discuss anymore and refuses to get the point. It seems he just wants to perpetuate a conflict for no apparent reason, which shouldn't be taking place in that page in the first place. --Beethoven (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Its likely more simple than that. Hispalois is a Spaniard who doesnt agree with Catalan independence. The repeated removal of ethnic distinctiveness is the the giveaway - its common in other ethnic groups on ENWP when one side wants to deny the individuality of the other in defiance of sourcing to the contrary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Hispalois indefinitely for disruptive editing. They can of course appeal that if they can convince another uninvolved admin that they won't repeat the behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspicious?

• Diamond145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TD-Linux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.11.73.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• AV1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The AV1 was bloated out with promotional text citing PR as "sources" (the ref. names even included PR in many cases). I cleaned this up and pruned back to something that isn't obviously written by their advertising agency and a curious thing happened: Diamond145, who hasn't ten previous edits and hasn't edited since March 2016, came along and reverted. I undid this and up popped 62.11.73.23 and then immediately TD-Linux, who has 11 previous edits, none tot his article, ad last edited in May. This either has to be off-wiki solicitation or sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw it mentioned on Twitter. So technically off-wiki solicitation. TD-Linux (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing the sources on the talk page first, and then, if there's a consensus to use any of them, expanding the article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 20:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I have a COI which is why I've previously stayed out of the article. I'll comment on the talk page to see if it's still possible for me to contribute. TD-Linux (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect Diamond145 does as well. It wouild be good if the article didn't read like an advert, for a start, but Diamond145 just reverted again. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I self-reverted out of an abundance of caution. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 21:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Brazil wildfires

There's an IP in 2019 Brazil Wildfires talk page that insists that Wikipedia is promoting racism and that there's an "1th world campaign against Brazil and it's people". Is clearly an behavioral issue and I think that is necessary an third party help to calm him and maybe is necessary to close this topic in a way to avoid anything that he could say that could be harmful to himself. What do you think? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't seems to be doing anything in the article itself, but I think that is necessary an ADM help. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious Edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New user MasterAju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 87 edits in three days. Some have been reverted as disruptive/vandalism. Other seems like they might be OK. This could be just an inexperienced new user (warnings on talk page have not been answered, but they have not been there that long either). Some edits seem pointless such as this and this which may indicate the user is trying to obtain autoconfirmed status and may be a sock. The first edit to their user page added a infobox... MB 00:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI against the above user here, based on similar style and edit areas. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This user made an infobox and accidentally added his original name (Harshal Khawse; which incidentally is similar to FlyingHarshk) and later edited it to MasterAju. Most edits are pointless date changes or quick edits on the first few lines of the page. - GreaterPonce665 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-RS again being inserted into Scientology-related articles

In behavior discussed four daya ago in an above thread, Iansnap12 (talk · contribs) added non-RS sources concerning Hubbard's literary agent Forrest Ackerman. This user has again added Ackerkman-related material, now citing an online auction as a RS. Feoffer (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs), not Iansnap12 (talk · contribs). TheAwesomeHwyh 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You also forgot to notify them of this discussion, which I have done for you. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I can give another source beyond the auction if that's the only issue, but given that the auction actually has images of the diploma, that seems pretty conclusive does it not? Iamsnag12 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Look- I'm not entirely comfortable editing in this area so I'm just going to stop now. I'm not going to make any comments relating to this unless it's really needed. Peace, TheAwesomeHwyh 02:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Likewise leaving to the admins for cleanup, but seems to violate WP:RS and WP:NOR; second incident in less than a week. Feoffer (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember that Scientology as a topic area is under discretionary sanctions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 03:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Misleading sentences and removal of needed templates

This IP user[28] is obviously Wikipedia:Nothere to contribute constructively. The user uses weasel words ("some") to mislead readers and don't seem to be interested in arguing in the talk page.[29]. Reverts the POV templates as well. The Yazidis page has already been vandalized a lot in the last couple of months and lost its protection status yesterday. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not how it is. I added sourced information and you just deleted it.[30] and you accused me of POV push and OR without reading the sources. Best wishes 91.236.142.212 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• 91.236.142.212, I agree with you that there are no weasel words and OR. I've noted that you have properly referenced the added material. You have also already reverted 3 times on that page. Please read WP:3RR. So please slow down. One more revert, irrespective of who is right or wrong, and you will get blocked. I will advise both of you that this is a content dispute and can't be handled here. This should be handled on the talk page of the article. Open up a new section and editors can discuss the added material and the references used. Follow WP:DR for resolving the dispute. Thanks, Lourdes 09:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Using the opinion of one person and generalize it to "some" is very troublesome (and is OR since the article does not indicate in any way that the opinion is generally held). If that sentence is going to stay, It needs . --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that you did not read the sources properly. It's not just an individual but "some" (just like the source says) "Some are glad the Kurds have gone and see an opportunity for increased autonomy now that they are under federal control following the offensive by Iraq’s security forces last October."[31] (So, Some Yazidis are happy that the Kurds have left the Yazidi territory of Sinjar and they do not want to be a part of Kurdistan.) and also "Like OTHERS, Abu Sardar complained that the Kurds forced him to vote in the Kurdish referendum, accusations the KRG denies." 91.236.142.212 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The wording is only half of my problem here. Let's discuss the second half: Out of the hundreds of scholars out there (including the more recent ones), what makes George Walter Prothero's opinion unique and why is he squeezed into the introduction? Also, Some Yazidis are happy that the Kurds have left the Yazidi territory of Sinjar and they do not want to be a part of Kurdistan indicates that others are unhappy that Kurds left Yazidi territory and want to be part of Kurdistan. Or am I missing something? Again, why is this relevant and squeezed into the introduction? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Persuading the user to use the talkpage to seek consensus doesn't work[32] and their reckless edits at Yazidis have already disorganized the article a lot. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier, not every piece of information should be included in the introduction of an article. There are certain sections for this. Especially on this topic where the origin is disputed. Since yesterday, you are deliberately operate an Editwar and removing sourced information and accuse me of POV push. You had reported me here because I had removed two templates. And as the admin had already recognized there were no weasel words and OR and everything was properly sourced. I think you are simply for personal purposes not satisfied with the information and deliberately misrepresent things. Best wishes 91.236.142.212 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: As someone who has not read the article in question, this seems like it's mostly a content dispute. I feel like the only real thing here is that 91.236.142.212 is apparently refusing to interact on the talk page. So, maybe focus on that? 91.236.142.212, why aren't you saying any of this on the talk page? Loki (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Refusal to accept third opinion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• The Real Housewives of New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AnAudLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KyleJoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user and I were involved in a dispute regarding this article, after which I sought a third opinion, which was given here. The user then changed the subject of the discussion entirely and shifted the focus away from the third opinion given, as displayed here. They instead expressed intent to suggest a new Wiki policy, fully knowing that they already did so to no support, as displayed here, to prolong the discussion. I'm wondering whether now it is acceptable to edit the article according to the majority view because the last time I did that, the user immediately reverted it, and I do not want to start an edit war. Thank you in advance for the assistance! KyleJoan^talk 08:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have provided many references for proper alphabetization. I did have support in the MOS suggestion topic, they just didn’t boldly write “Support”, please re-read. You did start an edit war at the beginning of July and reverted all of my changes repeatedly and you were suspended for a week, then you lied about why you were suspended during your appeal and they changed it from 1 week to 1 month for that deception. And...it was your 6th block. So let’s be honest here. I think before we reach a final decision more debate should be done. There should be consistency across Wikipedia to avoid confusion and misinformation. It’s not about “winning” as you so firmly believe, it’s about doing something correctly and consistently. AnAudLife (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Two separate matters: article discussion and proposed Wiki policy. I'm addressing the former and presenting the majority view, as displayed here when I started the discussion, here, and here. I only brought up the proposed Wiki policy that didn't come to fruition to detail how the focus of the discussion was shifted to distract from the third opinion given to settle the dispute between two editors regarding a specific article. KyleJoan^talk 08:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Another separate matter: my block, which was for edit warring, not vandalism. Therefore, it had nothing to do with the content I was presenting; content with which two editors have since agreed. KyleJoan^talk 09:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The article should reflect what is correct information. Which I have tried to convey here and in MOS. It should be the same across the board. And I have never “vandalized” a page, ever. Nor have I ever gotten blocked. And your last block occurred even though you were warned 5 times prior...where you promised to never do it again, but you did. If Ferdinand de Lesseps is alphabetized by Lesseps, then Luann de Lesseps should be as well, there should be continuity within Wikipedia. AnAudLife (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I look at this dispute and see you, AnAudLife, state your case, and as editors disagree with you one by one, you insist they are wrong, and continue to revert to your own preferred version of the article. This attitude is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's fourth pillar. You either care about achieving consensus or you do not. If this is going to be how you conduct yourself during disputes, you are going to be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have provided several references in complete support of my claim of proper alphabetization. The other user and her “friends” have provided nothing in support of theirs, they have only stated their opinions. Therein lies the difference. In the beginning of July, I saw this error on the page in question and corrected and then user:Kylejoan began reverting to the point of her getting blocked for a month. All I’m asking for is a FAIR consensus, I’ve done my research, provided multiple sources and references, with exact surnames being alphabetized as I have stated that is the norm and I think the other user disputing should as well. There are other users who agree with me and there are other references that support my claim. AnAudLife (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Third Opinion process is not mandatory or binding. The editor giving a third opinion is not an arbitrator. If you feel that you need more voices to establish consensus, I would suggest an RFC. I would also suggest that the tension be toned down somewhat as this seems to be distracting from the editorial process. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• +1 - I second Cosmic Sans's suggestion - Start an RFC - Doing so will get opinions from outside editors, I would suggest closing this too. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polemic user page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Blaue Max is little more than a collection of hundreds of polemic quotations. The "On Judaism" section, for example, is a collection of anti-semitism, "On Islam" is a collection of Islamophia, "On Feminism and Sexuality" is misogyny. It's basically a litany of bigotry against every group who doesn't appear to share Blaue Max's obvious conservative Catholicism, barring a few sections perhaps, and totally contrary to Wikipedia's inclusive ethos. I considered just going to MfD with it, but I thought it might be worth some wider attention. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC) (Thanks to Katie at WO for the heads-up).

I went there expecting to argue with you—I've always been firmly of the school that it's better for all concerned for editors to be upfront about their prejudices, so everyone else is aware of where they're coming from—but this is just an open sewer. The only reason I haven't WP:U5'd it straight away is that it's better to have a consensus (here or at MfD) to prevent it being recreated. ‑ Iridescent 14:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've always been in two minds about whether it's better to state your political/religious/etc opinions openly here, or to keep quiet about them and strive in your writings to make it impossible for anyone to tell. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 on a U5. Quotations, even repugnant ones, are certainly allowed on user pages, but the guidelines say "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material". This ain't it.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm at work and so would rather not look at that page, but based on the above comments and considering that it looks like that user page represents a significant portion of the user's contribs, I would suggest an immediate U5 with an explanation on the talk page beyond the boilerplate. If the user recreates, I would suggest that they're here to build an encyclopedia and block. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Concur U5 is the correct course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, please U5. "Open sewer" is about right. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a textbook example of WP:UP#POLEMIC.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I happened to read this while skimming the page after catching up on the report I filed above, and I concur with the calls for U5. The "On Decadence" section captions a photo of London Pride "Hell is empty and all the devils are here", for crying out loud. (A bit of irony there, I suppose.) Their most substantial edit apart from their own user page in months has been this. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-RS repeatedly spammed into Scientology articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:AndroidCat, a 15-year veteran of Wikipedia, first observed that a non-reliable source had been added to multiple articles by Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs): Timeline of Scientology, Clear (Scientology), Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard. As a result of AndroidCat's comments, the unreliable source was removed pending consensus for its inclusion. Iamsnag12 promptly readded the source right back in to the articles without discussion. [33][34][35][36]. Feoffer (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that NinjaRobotPilot has given this editor a notice of discretionary sanctions regarding Scientology. That's a good first step. There was a major blowup regarding pro-Scientology propaganda editing on Wikipedia over ten years ago. Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia covers that particular controversy. This needs to be nipped in the bud. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging NinjaRobotPirate since I botched the earlier ping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

They're currently edit warring on Clear (Scientology). I agree with Cullen- we can't afford to relive that fiasco. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Eek, nevermind! I misread the difs there. Sorry! TheAwesomeHwyh 05:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but what nonreliable sources were posted? I had listed newspaper articles as well as citations to a paper which gave the images of the actual transcript and letters from Cox himself. If you're saying CESNUR is nonreliable due to bias (which has not been proven just alleged) then how do you justify the obviously anti-Scientology materials as any more reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsnag12 (talk • contribs) 10:54, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

AndroidCat has asserted non-RS on CENSUR, contact them or the RS messageboard for details on how they reached that conclusion or to build a consensus. Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I looked into the publication a bit and it does appear to be scholarly and to have editorial oversight. Perhaps this would be a candidate for the RS noticeboard. But it doesn't seem to be presumptively unreliable. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iamsnag12: I'm going to ask the same question here that I asked on Iamsnag12's userpage: "What is your relationship with Scientology? Are you a Scientologist?" I should also add that this MUST be disclosed. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so the biases come out and yet I am told that I am not warned in other posts. I am at all not surprised. I am curious are all people required to disclose their religion and/or beliefs for other pages? Why is Scientology singled out? Anyway, no I am not a member of the Church of Scientology, but even if I were one, how is that at all relevant? Was anything I posted incorrect? Please let's discuss the actual facts posted, otherwise you are now pivoting from the stance of questioning my sources (which you've not been able to find anything wrong with) to questioning me. Iamsnag12 (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In this case whether or not you are a practicing Scientologist is VERY relevant. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 20:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Iamsnag12, you "forgot" to answer the question. What's your relationship with scientology? 00:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Better question: are you a practicing Scientologist? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

How did I forget to answer the question? I wrote "I am not a member of the Church of Scientology". No, I am not a practicing Scientologist. I'm still waiting on an answer about reasons for reverting my content since the goalposts are being shifted from the content now to me. If you have an issue with my content then discuss it, otherwise I am being singled out for no good reason. Iamsnag12 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• I reached out to this user on their talk page and it seems like they now understand what's going on now, and how to best act on Wikipedia. It looks as if they've stopped adding in this source for now, and discussion about the reliability of CESNUR continues on the talk page for L. Ron Hubbard. So, I don't think this fellow should be bitten too hard, and perhaps this discussion should be closed. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI and multiple accounts

• ShauneenBeukes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SBeukes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rtsclement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aspen Pharmacare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ShauneenBeukes is a name match for a marketing manager at Aspen Pharmacare. The account was blocked for spamming and unblocked per a COI commitment. Rtsclement appeared shortly afterwards, and is a WP:SPA. A new account SBeukes was registered in Feb 2019. No COI declaration was made. This performed mainspace edits to the Aspen article. At this case I am inclined to banninate. What do others think? These are all stale for CU of course, so it's WP:DUCK. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pretty clear violation of the first user's COI agreement, though I'm not sure if this really counts as socking since the first account is two years stale. Odds are they forgot about their first account and made a new one, and who knows, they might have forgotten about the COI talk in that time too. In the name of WP:AGF I'd be inclined to give the new account this one chance to answer the COI warning (maybe it would help to also point out the previous account), and drop the banhammer if they don't acknowledge it or continue editing. That said, the second account is half a year stale, so I don't expect any further action. creffett (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• The quacks are so loud that they hurt. The sole purpose of all of hem is promoting this one company, and none of them has edited any other topic. So ban them and be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand why you're interested in this now. Two of the users last edited in 2017, and the other about six months ago. I personally wouldn't block anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Because I fouind the article while reviewing self-published sources, and noticed that it was largely spam. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I can't see any good reason not to block the lot for breach of their unblock condition and/or meatpuppetry, Guy. Although I expect that when they want to add some more marketing spam, they'll just create another account. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls and WP:ASPERSIONS

@SashiRolls: has implied that I am somehow responsible for a personal attack that appeared on their talk page earlier today, and I am "punishing" them for edits elsewhere. Since it's a fairly serious accusation, I think it makes sense to go ahead and bring it here to let admins take a look.

I've previously asked SashiRolls to refrain from casting similar aspersions on other editors, and they've apparently got a "No personal comments" sanction from Awilley already. So, at a minimum, maybe someone should reiterate that WP:AGF probably precludes insinuating that other editors are conspiring to attack or punish them for their editing. Nblund ^talk 21:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me be crystal clear: I do not think that you wrote on my talk page. You were busy elsewhere. I am annoyed that I'm being harassed. If you have no sympathy about people being harassed, that's OK. Please don't add to it by starting pointless WP:ANI threads.

I apologize for letting the aggressivity of the tone at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard get under my skin. I am logging out. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

So Sashi receives a personal attack that had to be rev deleted and somehow it makes sense for you to bring them to this noticeboard? This should be closed. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Dubious comments from Sashi that could have been read a couple of ways; they were however understandably annoyed, and have now clarified what they meant and apologised. Agree with Mr Ernie that this should be closed. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Why would they tell me they "didn't appreciate" it on my user page despite the fact that it had nothing to do with me? And then to ask me whether they were being punished for editing elsewhere? SashiRolls clarified that they don't believe I personally edited their talk page, but they've clearly got it in their heads that they are being targeted with some kind of coordinated harassment. And they reference it constantly in a way that seems to imply that everyone who disagrees with them is engaged in a conspiracy. They didn't actually apologize for anything in particular other than for being angry (which isn't something to apologize for) and they blamed it on an "aggressive tone" from unspecified others. Nblund ^talk 22:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel I ought to apologise to you, Nblund, for having given the impression that I didn't take your concerns seriously. I don't know the history and background here, I just read the diff you posted, which I agree was worded in such a way as to imply that you might have had something to do with it. Sashi responded above saying that they accepted you had nothing to do with it, noted that they had allowed the comments to get under their skin, and (as I read it) apologised for responding in the way that they did. Personally, I think that's a sufficient response for this particular event; if there is a history of other stuff that I'm not aware of, then obviously my opinion is poorly informed and should be discounted. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In fairness to Nblund, it should be noted that and somehow it makes sense for you to bring them to this noticeboard? was unfair and inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I should elaborate a little on what I think is the core issue: Sashi is trying to comply with the letter of the "No personal comments" sanction but still fundamentally believes that editors are conspiring to disrupt AP32. So the editing takes the form of various iterations of "I'm not saying you're a paid sock, but..." This comment, for instance, makes a round-about insinuation about paid editing, while also including a comment about being "an ABD student not writing their dissertation" - which is a reference (the third such reference 1 2) to the sole piece of personal information I've placed on my user page.

Regardless of whether it is intentional, the fundamental problem is that Sashi seems to filter lots of stuff through the lens of an off-wiki conspiracy involving the DNC...or something along those lines. That viewpoint colors their interactions with other editors, and so they do stuff like attribute a bit of vandalism to a coordinated punishment, or immediately raise questions about off-wiki coordination this (see last line) as soon as a new editor disagrees with them. If Sashi feels they're being mischaracterized here, I'm open to hearing it, but the statement "I don't think you wrote on my talk page" is not really a repudiation of the insinuation that I'm involved of some broader harassment campaign. Nblund ^talk 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a rough chronology of events:

1. I was insulted twice by an SPA who was later blocked for 48 hours for two egregious personal attacks.
2. I mentioned the insult which took place at exactly the moment I had an edit-conflict (with you) trying to slow down your deletions at Tulsi Gabbard, a page where certain issues have been rehashed over and over and over. I provided a link to the insult.
3. You didn't say anything about the attack, which struck me as strange, because putting myself in your shoes I would have said something along the lines of "Geez, that's lame!" (and meant it) before moving on to cordial discussion about any issues.
4. As I tried to explain why I did not agree with your deletion, the assumptions of bad faith started piling up:
   1. The reason above seems transparently non-neutral. I suspect the reason this article has so much WP:CRUFT is because editors have done exactly this "if I can't remove it, I'll just add more crap to balance it out" in the past.
   2. Her links to him [Modi] obviously go far beyond that, so it's really misleading to portray the debate that way. here you have to know the context a bit, the gist of which is that there is an article which claims Gabbard is a Hindu nationalist because she has Indian-American donors & Nblund wants to remove text about Gabbard's withdrawal from the 2018 World Hindu Congress in Chicago because there was too much Indian partisan politicking going on (in other words evidence directly contrary to the article's thesis). Though I didn't add this bit, I do think it should stay in the article.
   3. Obviously we can't just copy-paste her entire stump speech here... just after you posted here, included just to give an idea of your style
   4. Forcing readers to bust out the corkboard and yarn to track down Pepe Silvia is not really going to improve the encyclopedia. one of your two final comments last night, about which it is worth noting that the end result of the discussion was a concise presentation of encyclopedic material, which had been neglected up to that point: [37]

Your cutting campaign on TG started with your first edit Saturday morning, which led me to think it might be related to your last edit Friday night (which had been to the page I was working on then, which xtools shows was your first ever edit to HRC's BLP (§))

I'm human. Seeing all the killing and raping and profiteering evil in the world I have a dimmer view of human nature than is always & everywhere compatible with the assumption of good faith en.wp asks us to aspire to, that is to say, even when people are following us around the encyclopedia, popping up on pages they've never edited before to make weird insinuations about someone apparently known as Pepe Silvia. I'm sorry that I'm imperfect in that way.

If I am permitted to speak frankly, it was your lack of any sign of compassion concerning my being called a "fascist scumbag moron" that probably was the strongest factor motivating my reaction (the link had not been revdelled when I shared it with you).

I apologize for my limitations and hope I have not hurt your feelings. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an isolated incident. Just from the past few weeks:

• When I reverted an edit SashiRolls made on Jill Stein, they immediately leaped to confronting me only slightly-veiled WP:ASPERSIONS about WP:MEAT, here, at the end of their paragraph here, and here. I assume this is also a dig at me given the timeframe (immediately after the edits above.) Also, presuming that's the case, the fact that SashiRolls apparently still considers me a "gamergate user", five years (!) after that dispute was at its peak, shows a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
• On Talk:Hillary Clinton, repeatedly accusing people of WP:GAMING, here, here (There is a long history of trying to prevent the encyclopedic recording of information about the Clinton's role as power-brokers in Haiti on en.wp, While I am not optimistic, I do hope there will be no further gaming of consensus.)
• On their talk, this: Not to worry, you'll teach Snoog right from wrong, won't you Mr. Willey? That's all that's needed... a clever fellow like you to patiently explain to them what they're doing wrong? It makes for good theatre, while everybody's looking, that's for sure, Mr. Willey. And here: (just another Pinocchio for your collection, eh?) And the edit summary here: fair enough. please ping me next time you go running to an admin to complain about something that is not your business. thank you.
• Directly above this comment, the hope I have not hurt your feelings; others can weigh in on the tone of that, but I thought I'd call attention to it.

This is, again, just from the past few weeks (and SashiRolls was blocked for part of that time.) American politics is a fraught topic area, and it's natural to get frustrated or for tempers to flare when dealing with editors whose views on a controversial topic (and, therefore, sources, appropriate WP:TONE, WP:DUE weight, initial assumptions about what sources are likely to say, and so on) substantially differs; that's true for everyone. But part of the way we navigate that gap is through WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and by trying to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct or thinking about things along battleground lines. I think it's clear SashiRolls is way too quick to leap to assuming bad faith, especially along WP:BATTLEGROUND lines, and that their conversations with people they perceive as being on the wrong side of that battleground is often barbed to the point of incivility. --Aquillion (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting that you've spent so much time scouring through my talk page, Aquillion (half of the diffs you present are from there). I'll reciprocate with some questions, answers, and data-driven analysis. You say I was referring to you when I was chuckling about someone comparing EEML to AP2. Nothing in my text would lead anyone but you to think that, though you are in fact correct: I had just learned "Gamergate controversy" was the article you've invested by far the most time in on en.wp, so it was indeed fresh in my mind. I notice that you changed the corrected "gamergate-savvy user" back to the version with a typographical error, which I'd fixed because "gamergate user" sounded dehumanizing and mean. Again, though, only you could have known who I might be referring to with that comment. At the time, I had no reason to believe you were policing my talk page.
• In half of the diffs from mainspace you present as containing incriminating evidence there is the question "What brought you to the Jill Stein article for the first time today?" Could you answer that question? It's strange how you and Nblund have both showed up on articles you'd never edited before involving Snooganssnoogans. It's true I have been injured in AP2 before, I am used to the tactics used. This is why I'm particularly attentive to the sudden arrival of seasoned battlers, such as yourself, on talk pages.
• The other half do not refer to any user in particular. What I'm referring to are the long and tedious debates over Caracol Industrial Park that took place in 2016 on a number of different pages, where goalposts were constantly being shifted and no number of RS was enough to convince people that the subject was worthy of encyclopedic interest, despite the scholarly interest in the initiative.
• You added "battle" in bold blue letters twice in your final paragraph and three five times total in your post (!) Are you thinking of that recent Slate article describing en.wp as a place where brutal, petty battles take place? ("Donald Trump's Wikipedia article is a war zone" §). With 81 edits, Talk:Donald Trump is your fifth most edited talk page. Just as a stylistic matter, notice that there were No Big Blue words in my statement above.

the FWIW Appendix: your editor interaction analysis with Nblund [38], with Snoogans [39]

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls: please use diffs when you're quoting conversations elsewhere, and make sure you're accurately characterizing discussions. I want to highlight that, despite all of the blame shifting, you're essentially doubling down on the behavior that prompted me to bring you to ANI. You're acknowledging that you failed to assume good faith about me (and now Aquillion and Snoogans). You've actually acknowledged that your dimmer view of human nature renders you incapable of consistently following WP:AGF in general, which is a problem for WP:AP2.

I made a grand total of two edits to the Hillary Clinton talk page. My primary contribution was to point out that the information you wanted in the article was already there, and that was enough for me to make your ever-growing enemies list. This equally benign edit to TALK:Jill Stein apparently was sufficient for you to add Aquillion as well. I can't think of a nicer way to describe this other than "paranoia", and it makes you pretty much impossible to work with. Nblund ^talk 15:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask Aquillion how they came to make this edit, their first ever, to that article. It does look like tag team editing to me. In fact, to me, that edit and the preceding and subsequent edits look exactly like the kind of problematic AP2 editing that is the subject of ongoing threads at BLPN and AN. (Let me know if you want me to diff this, but I think everyone knows what I'm talking about.) @NBlund: that paranoia you speak of may be justified. – Levivich 15:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

AFAICT, Aquillon is fairly active in AP2 related areas. A few hours before they edited Jill Stein, they were editing Federation for American Immigration Reform, Colcom Foundation, Center for Immigration Studies, Media bias in the United States, Talk:Ilhan Omar then not long before that their edits included [[Antifa (United States)]‎] and Ryan Houck. Point being, Aquillion ending up at Jill Stein doesn't seem particularly surprising or require any form of conspiracy. I make no comments on their edits since that's part of my point. If Aquillion's editing is problematic that's what we should be focusing on not weird conspiracy theories. Frankly it doesn't make much sense to me even given a dim view of human nature to come up with wacky conspiracy theories of this sort. If anything, there being some guiding force behind it is if anything in some ways more comforting than what's far more likely to be the case, people genuinely believe, support and want to advocate whatever you think is bad and wrong, and they make it there by some set of 'random' set of circumstances to 'oppose' you. In fact an episode of South Park comes to mind, but I digress. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(conflict) Asking editors who are active in AP2 why they are editing Jill Stein is a pointless question, but maybe understandable. Asking it twice is pushing it. Asking twice, and then kvetching repeatedly, is starting to get obnoxious. Kvetching, and then complaining in an ANI thread that the editor noticed that you were casting aspersions is a sign of someone who just doesn't get it.

I don't think I'm the subject of any of those discussions, and I can tell you on no uncertain terms that Sashi's paranoia around me is absurd. I've had (civil) disagreements with both editors mentioned here. My cuts to Tulsi Gabbard removed negative text, positive text, and (most importantly) text that had been rendered incoherent by slow motion edit warring. Reasonable people might disagree with some of them, but I don't see how any reasonable editor could view them as a "punishment". If an editor automatically interprets good faith content disagreements as a personal persecution then they shouldn't be editing in the area. Nblund ^talk 16:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

(EC) And while I'm somewhat confused about which article Nblund edited that is of concern, if it is Hillary Clinton that's an even weirder thing to be concerned about. Beyond a similar level of involvement in AP2 areas, Nblund is also active at BLPN which includes this thread Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again which I guess Sashirolls is aware of since they participated in it. Clinton was mentioned there. Although frankly even nearly 2 years after the 2016 US presidential election, it seems to be Clinton is comes up enough that someone ending up in that article shouldn't be in any way surprising.

As a final comment, I'm sure I'm not the only one who sometimes reads comments left to me quickly and doesn't necessarily bother to check out diffs. And I would add that 'the link had not been revdelled when I shared it with you' does not mean 'link had not been revdelled when I tried to check it out'.

Maybe more importantly, it's already been pointed out that the wording of the comment wasn't the best, it seems reasonable to AGF that Nblund genuinely felt they were been accused of sharing some responsibility or involvement in the attack. Frankly if I'd read that I probably would have felt the same. If someone falsely accused me of such, my sympathy for them for the attack is going to be greatly reduced. A simple comment like 'I apologise if I haven't handled things well, I've been in a foul mood since I received this attack' or something similar is far more likely to garner sympathy than the comment that was left.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Snoog 1, Snoog 2, Snoog 3, Aquillion 4, which was Aquillion's first ever edit to Jill Stein [40]. I'm not saying there's ill intent there, but it's not unreasonable to draw conclusions of cooperation or ask the question. It's not like it's the only time: S1, S2, A3, which was the only edit Aquillion has ever made to William Barr [41]; S1, A2, which was the only edit Aquillion has ever made to Brexit [42]. Aquillion does, in fact, sometimes seem to show up "out of the blue" just to "back up" Snoog in a content dispute or edit war. I don't think it's fair to characterize Sashi questioning this as engaging in conspiracy theories. – Levivich 17:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Levivich: If SashiRolls was just asking reasonable questions we wouldn't be here. Seriously: do you think SR is the only editor who ever wonders if they're being tag-teamed in WP:AP2? I suspect most editors have had the experience you're describing (I certainly have) and yet most editors in WP:AP2 are not constantly hurling accusations at everyone they interact with, and most don't have a block log like this. Nblund ^talk 22:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The above is your sixth comment in this thread. Again, I am sorry to have asssociated you with Bulldog Antz's comment. Now, I'd like to ask that you focus on your own behaviour. I do not appreciate you using my minor edits for wikilawyering purposes (as you did just some hours ago here).

What happened: a contributor added a lot of detailed text, one minor part of which remained unreferenced (after x, y¹) where (¹) supported only y. I removed after x, asking for a reference; they supplied the reference. Then you counted their contribution of after x² as a reversion of my edit, and counted it against them for 1RR purposes on their talk page. Seriously?

This is a good concrete example of one of the tactics that I really dislike in AP2. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: if there are multiple examples, this could be presented in an appropriate case. But, and I was considering saying this with my earlier replies, there's a reason we generally require multiple examples of any suggestions of inappropriate following or harassment. Coincidences can easily happen especially when, the articles involved are prominent and well within the normal editing patterns of the editor. In addition to ensuring fairness to the accused contributors by not accusing them of wrong doing without good evidence, it also ensures focus. And again there seems to be a good example here of why this is the case.

Even if Aquillion really is inappropriately teaming up against SashiRolls, I have seen zero evidence that Nblund is doing likewise. By accusing everyone who ever deals with you of being part of some malicious gang, you effectively undermine the credibility of possible genuine problem, 'the boy who cries wolf' like. Remember also what Nblund said in reply. Editors are entitled to feel however they wish. The problem becomes when it spills over into wikipedia. I'm sure plenty of people have seen editors and wonder why they got involved, but most try their best to put it aside and not let it colour the way their interact and edit. They especially don't go accusing every person and their dog of being part of some malicious gang.

@SashiRolls: Read what I said to Levivich especially the part about focus. If you want us to concentrate on possible problems with other editors, it would help a great deal if you stop distracting us with problems you cause. This means you really need to dial back on the accusations against others of inappropriately working together without good evidence.

Also, while you have our greatest sympathy for personal attacks you have suffered and will take them into account when considering your behaviour, remember they are only a minor excuse for poor behaviour and especially for poor behaviour against those who weren't involved. As I mentioned before, you shouldn't expect everyone to express sympathy every time you are attacked because even though they hopefully do have sympathy, there's plenty of reasons why they won't express it including that they never saw the attack. Notably as I said, if you have even if unintentionally connected someone uninvolved to the attack with the way you worded your comment, there should be no surprise that they don't express sympathy. I mention this because while you have said sorry for associating Nblund with the attack, earlier you still brought up the lack of any expressed sympathy which still seems very weird to me, especially when you've inadvertently associated them with the attack. And you didn't say something like 'how I felt at the time. Now I see how my comment was interpreted, I'm hardly surprised they didn't express sympathy'.

IMO it's unlikely anything concrete is happening from this thread. I would suggest you go back to working with other editors to the best of your abilities. If you have concerns, either talk about them politely with the editor directly, or if you feel they require administrative action, gather the necessary evidence and present it in a new case somewhere appropriate sometime in the future. In doing do, I strongly suggest you focus on the biggest problems and ensure you have sufficient evidence. It would help greatly if you ensure we don't also have to look at your behaviour. So maybe do your best to improve where you can and even wait a few months if possible.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Good conclusion, Nil Einne. Sashi apologized and explained their position. Many of us who have edited in the AP2 topic area know it’s a powder keg which may explain User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions#No personal comments and thicker skin sanctions. I will also add that my experiences with Aquillon got off to a rocky start, but we worked through it rather quickly. It was an uplifting experience that resulted in mutual respect. I’m of the mind that in the end, mutual respect is what it all boils down to. We should be thanking our luck stars that we all don’t share the same opinions and like the same things - Christmas shopping is bad enough now! ^Atsme _Talk 📧

@SashiRolls: I left a politely worded note on the user page of a week-old single purpose account which had broken 1RR and hadn't used an edit summary or the talk page to explain their reverts. All I did was explain the policy and ask them to use the talk page before more reversions. That's not wikilawyering. It's how editors normally interact. Frankly, I don't think your apology counts for much since you're coupling it with yet more frivolous complaints, but I'm really not looking for an apology anyway. Just focus on content instead of other users, and if you have an actual complaint supported by evidence, either bring it to ANI and supply diffs, or keep it to yourself. It's not a big ask. Nblund ^talk 12:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

One final point, while my comment was primarily directed at SashiRolls because of how this thread panned out, by no means should it be restricted to them. If you keep opening threads and complaining about another editor's behaviour no action results, consider first whether there is really a problem that warrants attention. If you're quite sure there is, then gather the evidence and do your best to post a focused but compelling case somewhere appropriate sometime in the future. But at the same time, be on the watchout for your behaviour to the best of your abilities. Us spending a lot of time looking at your behaviour is a good way for a thread to be derailed from whatever legitimate concerns you may have. At the very least, it can mean when people look at it they go 'this is a mess, I can't be bothered working out who did what wrong'. I'm particularly thinking of another editor often on the opposite side of SashiRolls who has been named but has not participated in this thread. (Won't name them as I'm not sure they were notified and this thread doesn't have much to do with them.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Fekusheku WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fekusheku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE. Their entire contributions are to one article to which they most likely have an undisclosed WP:COI. Multiple warnings about WP:DE were given, and a block once for WP:3RR. They refuse to communicate and discuss the issues pointed out and they keep trying to change the title and move the article against consensus. They have already being blocked once for WP:3RR. --Muhandes (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Indeffing. Though I must say, the bit about "obtaining marks" is probably accurate, just not in the intended sense of the word. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frustrating experience with an SPA - WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2019OutlaweD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dutch talk page of 2019OutlaweD
• Dutch contributions of 2019OutlaweD

I hate doing this with a relatively new user, but I'm getting exasperated. 2019OutlaweD recently pulled a block on wikipedia.nl for personal attacks. They then transitioned their work over to en.wiki. They have remained very focused on the current protests in Hong Kong, with most of their efforts being POV pushing on article talk pages such as this: [43]. I have cautioned them on multiple occasions about WP:NPA, WP:AGF and general use of article talk pages starting here: [44] and continuing to the helpdesk here [45] and here [46]. Their response to my caution was not to approach the user with whom they were having a conflict but rather to return to the article talk where the conflict occurred and significantly refactor the conversation, deleting comments by several other editors in the process [47] this included restoring comments about "you both" being "paid by Beijing" that I (possibly incorrectly) thought was pointed at Ltyl and myself. Though it may be Ltyl and another editor based on their response here [48]. However, having failed to get advice about how to remove an editor they disagreed with at article talk they approached EdJohnston to complain about Ltyl and me: [49]. Considering that I'd been rather gentle with them up to that point, this did nothing to endear me to them. EJ however declined to assist and asked them to follow my advice here: [50]. They rather strangely claimed not to be editing the article in response here: [51] and EJ quite rightly cautioned them about forum shopping [52]. 2019OutlaweD then went back to article talk and began making remarkably inappropriate suggestions for a proposed DYK [53]. Then they went back to helpdesk and claimed that I was a totalitarian, telling me to back off of editing articles about Chinese politics (which is something of a specialty of mine so, whatever) [54]. Then they made rather liberal use of the (Personal attack removed) template [55] [56], claimed any news source that contradicted their POV was Chinese propaganda [57] and made additional claims of persons being "paid by Beijing" (though I am uncertain whom, possibly the HK police?) [58].

In short this user, already blocked on one Wikipedia project for personal attacks severely enough that they pulled a talk page block seems to have exported their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to a particularly fraught area of en-wiki. They routinely insult other editors, treat article talk pages as a forum, have no interest in WP:NPOV, and seem to see Chinese agents in every shadow. They WP:FORUMSHOP when they don't get their way, have little regard for the comments of other editors, and are clearly here only to right great wrongs. They've refused to listen when I've tried to help them. And the only reason they haven't been up to the drama boards yesterday is because of WP:BITE. But even that has an asterix, as their dutch userpage claims they're a previous user who returned, although they've declined to disclose their previous account. [59] (And honestly, their userpage comment there seems to imply they may be circumventing a long-term block although I'd not hazard any certainty on that considering I was using translation software.)

With all this in mind, I am not convinced their participation represents a net positive to en-wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

ETA this is small beans but I checked with some sources I trust and it kind of falls under WP:NOTHERE - they have been using their sandbox here to edit pages in Dutch [60] which might also be considered cross-wiki abuse considering they continued doing so after they were blocked on nl-wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that the statements in relation to my account are accurate. Ltyl (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue; please excuse any errors on my part. For those who are not familiar with the Dutch Wikipedia: I am an administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia and I've blocked 2019OutlaweD for a week. The problems are exactly the same: adding POV to some articles. It was made undone by a user and that user became the victim of his assaults. All moderators were 'influenced by Chinese propaganda'. Remarkable is his complete lack of self-reflection. He assaults users, but he thinks he is the one being assaulted.

I can also confirm that he claims to by a previous user who returned, but I don't think he is circumventing a long-term block. He claims to be from Hong Kong and that seems to be likely, as he is probably not a Dutch native speaker. His Dutch is very good, but it hasn't yet reached native level.

Using your sandbox on the English Wikipedia while blocked on the Dutch one is prohibited. He asked me to re-open his Dutch sandbox, which I refused. He is circumventing his block and I have blocked him indefinitely on the Dutch Wikipedia. If you have any questions feel free to ask, Floortje Désirée (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Floortje Désirée. This is too bad. I have blocked the user indefinitely here, too. Thank you for reporting, Simonm223. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock request for LTA

Have an active LTA causing disruption and revert timesinks to a large number of articles in the country music, radio, name and school categories. Their main trends include:

1. Not following WP:SUBCAT hierarchy and double categorization (ex: [61])
2. Creating talk pages for non-existent articles (ex: Talk:WOCG_(FM))
3. Adding the Category:Living people to deceased people (ex: [62])
4. Adding of "current" callsigns to the "former_callsigns" in the infobox of radio articles, plus marking former in the future (ie: former until 2020) (ex: [63])
5. Adding parent categories to "Name" articles/disambiguations (ex: [64])
6. Adding non–existent/unverified schools to education sections of geographic areas (ex: [65])
7. Inappropriate categories (ie: adding singer–songwriter to a non-musician)(ex: [66])

For details please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Country music category vandal from Tennessee.

The majority of vandalism have come from the following IPs:

1. 2603:3018:B00:A00... (ex: User:2603:3018:B00:A00:D8A7:FCA1:6FAE:5282)
2. 2600:6C5D:577F... (ex: User:2600:6C5D:577F:EF45:6129:E694:7120:BB1B)
3. 2601:483:101:7ADC... (ex: User:2601:483:101:7ADC:6967:BFF7:D43B:25B8)
4. 68.187.22... (ex: User:68.187.22.153)
5. 96.38.44... (ex: User:96.38.44.162)
6. 75.130.122... (ex: User:75.130.122.66)
7. 68.53.55... (ex: User:68.53.55.40)
8. 97.81.164... (ex: User:97.81.164.152)
9. 97.82.85... (ex: User:97.82.85.26)
10. 174.250... (ex: User:174.250.142.149)
11. 174.255... (ex: User:174.255.192.156)

Respectfully submitted, --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful to post links to some diffs, or their specific IPs. 174.250.0.0/16 and 174.255.0.0/16 are massive ranges. 65,534 addresses in each of those. - Frood (talk!) 22:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Added an example of each to the lists above, plus added another trend. There will be multiple instances for each range set. As for those last two ranges, I just added all the multiple appearance IPs to the list. Even if left unblocked hopefully the majority of others would help decrease need to reverting as often. Specific IPs can be found at their LTA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked 97.81.164.152 (talk · contribs) for one month based on the report above but don't mind if another admin wants to make it longer. The most distinctive feature is the playing around with categories of country music performers. As expected, we have here an edit to put a deceased performer into the category of living people. I've also blocked Special:Contributions/174.250.142.0/24 for one month. This change from Cassimir to Cassimer is against the most common spelling of the ship's name found on Google so is most likely vandalism. I've also semiprotected Riley Green (singer), and take note of a well-intentioned registered editor who says "All IP edits on country discography are automatically reverted and I will NOT stop". This goes well beyond our policies but the sentiment is understandable. To see the editor's reasoning you could look at the history of that article and try to figure out which (if any) of the many IP edits are likely to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if it'd be worth it to get an edit filter for this. It seems like it'd be fairly easy to get a filter that tags/warns since the edits are so predictable. - Frood (talk!) 03:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Jack90s15 and WP:CIR

Jack90s15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an user with voluminous edits to various World War II topics. He registered in September 2018, and has been blocked three times for disruptive editing and socking. But the biggest issue is WP:CIR. For instance, he has been asked to properly add signatures several times since October 2018 (1, 2, 3, 4), yet as recently as this month in a thread about Jack90s15 biting newbies, he again failed to properly add a signature. He currently has four "preceding unsigned comment was left by Jack90s15" templates on his talkpage alone.

Additionally, he has been asked to stop reverting himself in the past. Yet as of today, he made almost 150 consecutive edits in Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, which included several instances of edit-warring with himself. Just look at that page history. Many of his edit summaries are incompherensible, such as this: on page 9/ On the basis of biological conditions, it can be assumed that, statistically speaking, about every tenth sexual intercourse results in a swan. On the talk page, Jack90s15 stated that the mistake happened because he was using Google translate. No wonder there are difficulties understanding his edit summaries and talk page messages.

More seriously, he has been falsifying sourced information in the past:[67][68][69][70] He just changed numbers that had a citation without changing the source. I brought this up on Jack's talk page. In that thread, Nick-D had an apt comment: Jack90s15, this is getting ridiculous. This talk page is a long-running series of messages asking you to stop messing up articles. To be blunt, you are not competent to be editing in the fields you are editing. The same patterns keep repeating themselves. Exactly what WP:CIR is about. This was in March, and the same issues mentioned above keep happening. It is a massive time sink to keep scrutinizing such voluminous edits, so I think some administrative action is needed.--Pudeo (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This user assisted with the recent GAN of Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and was a net positive. While there were a lot of edits recently on that article there wasn't any vandalism and the reader wouldn't have noticed anything at all. Szzuk (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• While I found Jack90s15's early editing to be problematic for a range of reasons, what I've seen of their recent editing has been consistently good. This has included some very sensible edits to the very high profile World War II article, as well as other articles on sensitive topics. As they have responded positively to earlier comments about their editing, I'm not seeing any reason for this to have been brought here. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • He literally just reverted himself 41 times in a 24 hours span in Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. I suppose that technically does not break the 3RR, but it's still making a mess. He still doesn't understand Wikipedia formatting. Seems like a WP:HTD option to say he's a net-positive. --Pudeo (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • What are you hoping to achieve by attacking me? Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• At the very least, Jack90s15 needs to stop changing reliably sourced information and recognise that sources can differ on details, and that we compare and contrast the sources when that occurs, not just go with the source we prefer. He also needs to work out how to type four tildes, he's been here long enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hello @Pudeo: @Szzuk: @Peacemaker67: @Nick-D: I hope you all are having a great Day or night wherever you are!. I will address the concerns that have been made, I was not falsifying those edits at the time they where based off of sources and 1 was a mistake. For the Hitler page I added the source to page where I got the number.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• For the Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin for the edit with the colonies that was an honest mistake, the other one was when the page was being built up with @C.J. Griffin: @Paul Siebert: @Woogie10w: and for that we all worked together to make sure the sources were Correct.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• for the Soviets In World War II at the time I hyper linked it to where the number came from I should have added the source to.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• for all my older edits I was not making numbers out of Thin air they were all based off of a source and one was a honest mistake.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have been Continuously removing Vandalism from Wikipedia and undoing edits of people trying to blank pages, and fighting Sock puppets in no way am I trying to falsifying any information on wikipedia. I have Gotten many thanks from people who have seen me fight people who have been doing that @Everedux: @LightandDark2000: @Path slopu: @Chetsford: @S0091: @Favonian: @MPS1992:.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have had recent disagreements with users @Kierzek: @Obenritter: and I did talk to them to see what could be done and I was Given a handful of good advice that I am going to do.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• For myth of the clean Wehrmacht page I was just trying to get to last picture not to go into the other section Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I apologize to everyone for my older edits coming off as me trying to make things up Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Another example of this user's incompetence or carelessness occurred a week ago when he moved another user's talk page from User talk:PlanespotterA320 into mainspace as PlanespotterA320. He said that his adopter was teaching him how to move a page. If he has an adopter, I would hope that the adopter would keep a careful eye on what the user is doing. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• User @PlanespotterA320: is my adopter they were showing me how to move a page that is why I did that I was seeing if I had the process down. It was a honest mistake when trying to lean something new @David Biddulph: Jack90s15 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I tried explaining to him how to move something from his sandbox to the mainspace. Clearly he did not understand. I think it would be best that from now on he avoid page moving, (perhaps sticking to drafting in a sandbox and then asking for the text to be added once it's finished)?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• @PlanespotterA320: @David Biddulph: that sounds like a plan I do understand the concept right now. But I would be more then happy to Stick to that till the community as confidence in me doing thatJack90s15 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have seen Jack90s15's numerous anti-vandalism edits which are good stuff. And yes, he generally is a nice person in discussions. I just don't see him having learned much. Not a big fan of what's happening right now at Rape during the occupation of Germany, which essentially is insertion of primary sources and a mess at the talk page. The pattern is clear: sourcing issues, formatting issues, editing issues (such as self reverting, very numerous consecutive edits) in very controversial historical articles. All these combined, it's hard to monitor articles for quality. I spent a lot of time looking for the unsourced number changes back in February. I presented this case here as I best felt, and it's fine if you see him as a net-positive in these articles. But it's certainly something I will wash my hands of and move on. --Pudeo (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• I believe Jack90s15 still has a lot to learn as to good editing and what constitutes a WP:RS source, but he does not do things out of malice. He seems to be trying to do better. Some good observation and discernment is what he needs to practice. And his anti-vandalism edits have been helpful. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Pudeo: like I said with my older edits I was not making numbers out of Thin air they were all based off of a source and one was a honest mistake. For souring I do use proper sources now like for the myth of the clean Wehrmacht page. And when I saw the potential Sock puppet on that page I reported them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YMB29 If I got you mad at me I apologize.Jack90s15 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Jack is new to the WW2 topic and not fully aware of what is considered a good source...but they are learning and trying their best. Perhaps a reference mentor would help?--Moxy 🍁 20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: I wouldn't mind the extra help I am starting to get better with it. I did help with myth of the clean Wehrmacht page to make it a GA. The only reason I put that source Back was because it was there and it went to a Blank page.I did not know it was banned is there any app that shows you if a Site is banned?Jack90s15 (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to avoid coming here knowing our admins are in short supply, but Nomopbs has been overly disruptive with no signs of improving without admin intervention. To make matters worse, he projects his bad behavior onto others, casts aspersions, fills article TPs with his screeds, doesn't quite understand our core content policies or what constitutes a RS. I'm usually among the first willing to mentor and help new editors, but this one is beyond my ability. Despite being relatively new to WP, he is not a newcomer to the dramah boards - all related to the same topic area:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Dogsbite.org_dispute 02-25-19 re: Dogsbite.org
• 04-02-19 re: Fatal dog attacks in the United States - never his fault - projects his bad behavior onto others;

I've exercised patience for a little over a month now - he does show potential less the tendentious editing which has caused good editors to leave the topic area, myself included, and I was in the middle of a GA review when he burst onto the scene and disrupted the process. There has been some concern raised over his behavior per WP:NOTADVOCACY partly due to his user name (which he has since changed) and his intense focus on keeping modern purebred bulldog types juxtaposed and/or associated with crossbred fighting dogs (pit bull types) as the following diffs will demonstrate:

• 06-13-19 GAC nom, Talk:Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier/GA1 07-08-19 FunkMonk accepted the GAC
• 07-09-19 first sign of advocacy; focus on Breed-specific legislation
• 07-09-19 performed edit without discussion during GA review & removed informative material
• 07-09-19 I left some of his changes per his initial suggestion, but added back important information he removed
• 07-09-19 first signs of his aggressive behavior
• 07-09-19 casting aspersions and BATTLEGROUND behavior
• 07-09-19 POV pushing, coatrack (omission of important info) and false accusations in edit summary - projecting his bad behavior onto others
• 07-10-19 Cullen issues general warning
• 07-10-19 Nomopbs replies to Cullen that he never heard of a GA review
• 07-10-19 Cullen advises him to stop being aggressive and confrontational toward his fellow editors
• 07-11-19 See my response to him above this diff - he continues projecting his behavior onto me, making fallacious allegations despite Cullen's warning
• 07-24-19 more POV pushing
• 07-26-19 denigrates official breed registries
• 07-26-19 after making false accusations against me, claims "y'all keep coaxing me back"
• 07-27-19 accused me and Gareth Griffith-Jones of tag-teaming
• 07-28-19 instructs reviewer to leave him out of it after causing disruption
• 08-02-19 advocacy adding "has often been included in breed bans that target pit bull type dogs"
• 08-06-19 advocacy prodding Dempsey (dog) - about notable dog wrongfully accused
• 08-06-19 advocacy altering info about Dempsey in Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
• 08-06-19 advocacy projecting - calls my work a "hatchet job" Bulldog breeds
• 08-08-19 advocacy POV pushing fictitious "rare breed" citing unreliable sources
• 08-08-19 projects his bad behavior, casts aspersions
• 08-09-19 my first warning to him after reading his aspersions
• 08-09-19 WP:HOUNDING my edits
• 08-15-19 another editor noticed his name. Nomopbs casts more aspersions against me.
• 08-13-19 it was a sincere question, yet Nomopbs falsely accused me of hounding
• 08-15-19 Nomopbs changes user name
• 08-15-19 posts a warning on my TP, casts aspersions

Sorry for adding so many diffs but I needed to demonstrate his patterned behavior. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

May I also point to the last ANI in which I mediated a dispute involving NomoPBS [71], where NomPBS showed a rather battleground mentality and refused to see their own mistakes. I also at the time questioned whether NomoPBS maybe had a COI with dogs, considering their username. I think a topic-ban on dog and dog related articles is in order, as it is clear that NomoPBS's emotions surrounding dogs run too high to collaborate. That or an outright indeff. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: User Nomopbs, or Normal Op, their new username now, has previously cast aspersions and attacked another longtime WP editor, PearlSt82, has disrupted a solid GAN, and is now attacking yet another long term editor. All attempts to reason with this individual result in long, tenditious attacks or at best, tl;dr argumentation that goes nowhere. There is also some evidence of meatpupperty or sockpuppetry involving another relatively new account that edits dog articles, and there has been at least one other inquiry about sockpuppetry involving yet another account. There was an set anon IPs making extensive edits on the bulldog breeds article right before this user created their account, and Dwanyewest also has made a comment that "I won't interfere otherwise I will be accused by the likes of User:Nomopbs of vandalizing the article." Editors who engage in this sort of single-purpose editing, with near-immediate drama, need to be restricted in some manner. I would suggest a 30-day block from dog articles, broadly construed, and see if they settle down. Their response below pretty much establishes the case against them. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Unfounded accusation of sock-meat-puppetry with no evidence, Montanabw. I'm assuming you're referring to Aquataste. You should have first applied for Wikipedia:CheckUser before making that allegation. My account was created on 2018-11-02; Aquataste created his/hers on 2018-12-01. There were only three IP address edits to Bulldog breeds anywhere near that time, specifically 2018-10-29 thru 2018-11-03 [72]; one was minor, two were jibberish. Not even the use of the "Interaction Timeline" tool finds any signs of puppetries. Hell, I was delighted I got an "Ataboy!" from Aquataste; the only pat on the back I've gotten (besides my real life friends; none of whom are wikieditors). So I don't know what sort of evidence you think exists. Go ahead and request that Checkuser investigation. The other inquiry resulted in the findings of a wifi connection shared by two neighbors, which has since been resolved so it shouldn't come up again. — Normal Op (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• From my last email to you, "You appear to have been on T's wifi but since the majority of edits were yours, it looks the other way around. If the dogbite.org deletion discussion was underway right now, you would most likely be blocked for meatpuppetry. Consider that you have been warned not to get into that kind of situation again. I would also not recommend that you use his wifi again. Another checkuser would possibly block. I don't have the full picture yet but I don't think that going to ANI right now would be a good idea. If you do and someone asks about my post on your talk page then you should let them know that you have been warned by me in email."

• I'm posting for transparency's sake and because my findings weren't reported accurately.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Response from the accused, Normal Op (f/k/a Nomopbs)

Introduction: This all started as an ordinary CONTENT issue. Atsme has been whitewashing dog topic articles, removing content, and promoting the writing of a policy that would CENSOR certain content. Her reaction to ordinary editing against her wishes has been to start fighting against other editors and accusing them of personally attacking her (when all they were doing was editing content), followed by canvassing other editors to join in the attack of her [perceived] opponents. Atsme has a long history of reacting with hostility to edits against her wishes, which have resulted in topic banning her more than once. Apparently, I am her latest target. In an effort to skew opinion in her favor, her ANI write-up is full of loaded language and the summaries next to her diffs do NOT represent what is found in the diffs, all while painting herself as an innocent victim with the patience of Job.

Venue and time frame of interactions: Started with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article in early July 2019, paused for a week or so, then moved to the bulldog breeds area for about two weeks (August).

Canvassing: I have discovered four instances where Atsme solicited non-involved editors to join into her fight [against me]. Two declined: [73] [74]. Two jumped in, piled on, scolded me, but did NOT get further involved in the discussion or editing of content of the article, including Cullen328 [75] (who Atsme mentions in her ANI complaint, but omits mentioning she twice solicited him) and Gareth Griffith-Jones [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] (who was the "tag team" mentioned; and they were emailing each other).

My behavior: My reactions have been normal based on the rapid escalation of Atsme's exclusionary don't-participate orders — being told to discuss-don't-edit, followed by 'your discussions are unwelcome', then 'go away, we're in the middle of a GA', 'you're attacking me', 'don't even talk to me', 'you're going to get topic banned', 'I'm done here'. Goaded into reaction, my attempts to explain my edits or my viewpoint were met with cries of "aspersions", "gaslighting" and "personal attacks", followed by Atsme soliciting other editors to "pile on" me. Any attempt to document, provide evidence of, or catalog specific actions by Atsme engendered more accusations of personally attacking her. The only action which worked was me 'going away'. This describes WP:BULLYING behavior.

Bullying a second editor: During the Staffordshire Bull Terrier GA marathon in July, Atsme attacked editor Cavalryman in the same manner, and they went through the same process (don't edit, discuss, your explanations are personal attacks, go away) until he retreated and stopped participating. This also describes a WP:BULLYING pattern. Best diffs (July 17-18): Atsme accuses Cavalryman [81], C's explanations about content [82], A starts with the "you're PAing me" [83], Pile-on by (probably canvassed) editor M [84], C's remarks about content and objection to accusations [85].

WikiBullying: Using the guidelines from WikiBullying the policy to research Atsme's actions, I provide the following evidence of recent conduct:

• Asserting ownership [86] [87] [88]
• POV Railroading [89] [90] [91]
• False accusations [92] [93] [94] [95]
• Misrepresentation/civility [96] [97] [98] [99]
• Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy [100] [101] [102]
• Threats/harassment (to cause a chilling effect in other editors) [103] [104] [105]

After discovering Atsme's pugnacious conduct in mid-July, I have tried extra hard to stick to content matters only but, despite that, Atsme continues to pick fights on Talk pages, insult and harass, and recruit non-involved editors to her cause.

Previous conduct leading to bans: Atsme was topic-banned from Antifa or some American Politics subjects, not once, but twice. The announcement [106] specifically mentions the SAME behavior as Atsme has shown in the dog breed topics leading to this ANI. That admin wrote: "Despite your commitments to "LETITGO", when someone actually suggested that you "drop the stick" you accuse them of "gaslighting" you. In fact it looks like you've accused at least 4 people of gaslighting you in the past couple of days. You take offense when others accuse you of CIVILPOV pushing, but you're quite liberal in doling out your own accusations of POV pushing. And your behavior at [link] and in the following subsection and RfC is a good example of the overbearing approach that was a part of the rationale for the original ban, and that you promised to discontinue." (Underline emphasis is my own.)

Further research led me to discover Atsme's pattern of accusations occurs all over Wikipedia, not just in my small world of dog topics nor limited to Antifa/AmPol. At first I thought it odd to see that more than half Atsme's 27K edits occured on User Talk and Talk pages, and there are three times as many Talk edits as main space edits [107]. A search of Talk and User Talk namespace for the words "Atsme aspersion" [108] brings up 273 instances. Then I read dozens of them. Same patterns.

My username change was prompted by the bullying. This [109] was the second time someone misinterpretted my old Nomopbs username as 'NOMOrePitBullS', and used that to allege spurious hidden intentions behind my edits. They alleged actions/edits which I wasn't involved in, accused me of violating WP:ADVOCACY, and didn't provide any evidence. The username change request does not yet appear in the archived logs, but the reason I gave was "I've been insulted twice based on a wrongly guessed meaning of the letters of my username and want to avoid future incidents. Therefore I'd like to switch from "nomop" to "normal op". I can skip the B.S. (Double-entendre fully meant!)" My old username was coined to represent "Normal operating procedure bull shit" and harkened back to the days when I worked in a ridiculously policy-heavy organization. My new username is "Normal Op".

This ANI: Atsme followed the username mix-up by insulting me [110], me telling her to stop harassing me [111], me putting a standard warning template on her Talk page [112], and Atsme declaring she was going to ANI [113]. This morning I discovered this ANI.

My actual intentions were to stop the whitewashing on the Staffordshire Bull Terrier page in July (a viewpoint shared by editor Cavalryman, whom I had not previously encountered) and in August to stop Atsme's destruction, removal, and censorship of material. Atsme's announcement of her intentions starts here [114], and continued with comments on other Talk pages. Atsme filed three AfDs for dog breed topics, so there's comments on the AfDs and all three Talk pages. Atsme went on a tear removing content and announcing her proposal to exclude all mention of 'non-recognized dog breeds' from the entirety of Wikipedia. My actions to block the destruction, and instead upgrade articles, has been met with more contentiousness from Atsme, culminating in this ANI today.

Advocacy? I'm not sure why someone allegedly interested in "No more pit bulls" would be trying to save material about bulldog breeds, or spend an entire week (as I did 8/8/2019-8/13/2019 [115]) researching and upgrading articles about them and rooting out citations and photos. The accusation is ludicrous and isn't borne out in fact by my edits, my pattern of edits, nor my Talk page discussions about content. (Nor has anyone provided any diffs indicating such a bent.) But don't take my word for it: check my edits in the edit histories of Bulldog breeds, Alano Español, Continental bulldog, French Bulldog, Ca de Bou, Catahoula bulldog, and Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog.

My Conclusion: This ANI is the latest action in Atsme's bullying pattern against me. Atsme has a lot more years of experience in Wikipedia than I have, and has been involved in far more disputes. Her diffs do not support the commentary she posted beside each of them, nor the accusations she is making against me. It's a complicated, messy topic with hundreds of interactions. I hope anyone reading this is able to follow along and separate the fact from the fiction.

— Normal Op (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to write the conclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: (aka Guy) And you don't get to edit my comments. My write-up, my introduction, my presentation, MY conclusion. Don't ever again strike out or alter anything in my text. — Normal Op (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I do. This is the admin noticeboard. I also get to block you if I want. But I am still reviewing the diffs. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally a wall of text, but they can come up with their own conclusion without this. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That sure is a WALL of text. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I categorically reject any suggestion that I have ever been bullied by Atsme in any way. Cavalryman (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

To avoid confusion, I am creating a discussion section, now that we have long sections by both the complainant and the respondent. I've pretty much said my piece here, but it is a common courtesy to ping various people mentioned so that they may speak on their own behalf, so I shall do so. Thus, alerting Cullen328, Cavalryman, and Gareth_Griffith-Jones. I suggest future and further discussion by other editors take place here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I might be biased as I was the target of an ANI previously filed by Nomopbs (mentioned above), but after the discussion was archived without closer, I attempted to resolve the content dispute on Fatal dog attacks in the United States by requesting a third opinion. When the discussion wasn't going their way and consensus was against them, they responded with incivility, and appeared to put a ragequit type message on their userpage. When their version of the page - a bulleted list of primary studies, was removed by consensus, they put their own POV fork back up at Fatal dog attacks, which still reads in inappropriate bullet point form, using primary studies not secondary. I'm highly skeptical of their rationale for their namechange, as its hard to believe it means anything but "No more pitbulls". A few days ago, it was discovered that they were using multiple accounts on the same IP address at the dogsbite.org AFD discussion - these two events combined strikes me as being highly WP:GAMEy. I don't know if an indef is the answer, as they have branched out correcting minor typos across the project, but their problematic areas in the dog article area are certainly persisting after several months. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, the former username is pretty transparently short for No more pitbulls. Regardless of how you feel about the dogs commonly called pitbulls, it's pretty clear Normal OP is somewhere between WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE. The content area of pitbulls is itself a definite place to watch, as there is a great deal of polarization between both sides of the debate. I don't think Normal OP is acting so much in bad faith as perhaps a sincerely held belief that there is pro-pitbull bias on Wikipedia, and while that's definitely something to be wary of, it's clear that Normal OP's approach is not constructive and needs to change in some way. Thus, I think a topic ban from dangerous dogs generally, from pitbulls specifically, or from legislation and litigation involving dogs and dog safety would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Don't forget Aquataste. — Normal Op (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What does this have to do with them? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

@CaptainEek: Montanabw mentioned Aquataste, then tagged everyone else except Aquataste. Just following the convention Montanabw laid out. — Normal Op (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, fair, my bad. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was a toothpaste. EEng 02:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• This appears to be a case of a WP:SPA on a mission. My strong initial impression is that a topic ban is warranted. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: This whole conversation is happening because Atsme's deletion request for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulldog breeds is not going very well for him, so now he is trying to get Nomopbs account deleted. The person that is being aggressive and uncivil is Atsme, not Nomopbs. Atsme is a deletionist and Nomopbs is doing a good job editing and trying to save the article! Aquatastetalk 11:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Struck sock comment. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Your comment is a PA per WP:Casting aspersions, and as an ArbCom remedy, may well be under the purview of AE. Your comments are very unkind, hurtful and untrue. I am more of an inclusionist and have invested most of my time at AfD working to rescue and improve articles. When I nominate an article for AfD, you can rest assured there are valid reasons. I posted a warning on your TP and requested that you strike your aspersions and the ill-will you have shown toward me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, posted three deletion of article requests in the same day and the consensus for each is not going his way, certainly does not make Atsme an inclusionist but rather a deletionist! One, Two, Three. At this point, I would recommend that the Admins consider giving Atsme a time-out at Wikipedia! Aquatastetalk 13:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Aquataste, can you confirm you are not IQ125? The topic overlap (chess, bulldogs, dog fighting/blood sports and Canadian topics) and article overlap (Olde Boston Bulldogge and List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer to name two) between the pair of you is truely extraordinary. Cavalryman (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

Dunno what their response would have been, but I can confirm the two accounts. Thanks, Cavalryman.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, so you perma-banned Aquataste's account. Calling out the big guns to attack anyone who supports me or opposes y'all. Nice play. And that even works as a warning shot over the bow to any would-be uninvolved editor who might venture to look at this ANI. Double score! No one would dare set foot inside this witch hunt now lest they be next. I must admire the gamesmanship, if not the players. Enjoy your cliques. I think I'll go mow the lawn. Yard work, though dirty and sweaty, is infinitely more pleasant. — Normal Op (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice rant. But since I'm sure you're aware the rules on sock puppetry are very strict, your conspiracy theory about that block isn't going to go anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JzG (Guy) blocked Normal Op for 31 hours for personal attacks or harassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• IBAN each other Normal Op has some valid points. Normal editing doesn't cease when under review for GA or FA. Likewise, Several of Atsme's deletions/actions are definitely in bad faith/unnecessarily hostile terrain. This very much feels like Atsme's actions are indeed retaliation. Normal Op also seems to be spending some time goading and needling. Normal Op, when done with your block, I would request that you refrain from further walls of text. IBAN would seem to be appropriate here. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban for Normal Op on dog and dog related articles. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban for Normal Op from anything related to dogs. I came across Fatal dog attacks in the United States when it looked like this: [116]. Normal Op had recently added that bullet-pointed list and summary of studies to the article, which was not appropriate content for the article (aside from the MOS violations, half of the studies were explicitly about non-fatal dog attacks), so I removed it. Their responses on the talk page showed battleground behavior and assumption of bad faith [117] [118]. Judging by other diffs presented, the previous ANI case, and this user's responses on this page, apparently that is typical of this user. They are here to promote their agenda. Maybe they could do good editing outside of the topic of dogs, but they certainly cannot within it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To set some facts straight, on 4/12/19 editor B__ removed 88% of the article (326,000 bytes), the entirety of the list of fatal events which have been the backbone of the article since it was created ten years prior. That's the version Red Rock Canyon links to. An hour later RRC removed 65% of the remaining text to leave standing a miniscule 4% of the original article. The resulting discussion on the Talk page was just as much about B's removal as RRC's removal. And then other editors suggested changing the name of the article, its purpose, and how it should be divided further. Since I had strong opinions, having been the primary editor of that article during the previous four months and heavily contributing my time with research to add about a hundred more fatality events, it is not so surprising that things got passionate on the Talk page. After a few days, I conceded the debate and took a hiatus from Wikipedia for an entire month. Notably, in the four months since [what appeared to be a] consensus, and with me out of the way, no one has implemented a single one of the changes they presented, discussed, debated, and got agreement on. Normal Op (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• T-ban - much too close to the topic. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding - the disruption by Normal OP continues with his screeds and now an embarrasing long list of unreliable sources at the Catahoula bulldog DRV. It is absolutely appalling. Sources like Doggie Designer, American Canine Association beware, fraud alert, all over the internet - "The problem today is that there are numerous pseudo-registries such as the American Canine Association (ACA), National Pet Registry (NPR), American Pet Registry (APR), or Continental Kennel Club (CKCI) and all will give you a certificate stating that your dog is “registered”. But within the purebred dog fancy, they are seen as counterfeit. The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier - a self-published book by hobbyists, and various other internet crap like Dog Breed Info, and on and on. If something isn't done to stop this madness, I'm concerned there will be a major walk-out of good seasoned editors at the Dog Project. It really is a sad state of affairs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Though I have indeed offered up examples of numerous citations that could be used, I had neither declared them RS, researched each one deeply, nor inserted them into any articles. The offering certainly didn't deserve cherry picking the worst citations then an onslaught of "disruption", "screed", "embarrasing", "appalling", "crap", "madness", and "sad state of affairs" all in one small paragraph — followed by threatening a potential walkout of other editors (unnamed) to go along with her own quit threat, "Once I see the results, I will make a determination if I'm going to continue as a NPP volunteer." [119]. As for "too close to the topic", I will recommend Atsme review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to her own close familial connection to a commercial dog breeding business and in particular to "bulldogs" and "American Bulldogs", coincidentally one of the two parent breeds of the hotly contended Catahoula Bulldog breed (see the interrelated AfD [120], DRV [121] and RSN [122]). Normal Op (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

^^^^ HARASSMENT ^^^^ He's following me around again. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban for Normal Op. They can always ask for it to be rescinded later if they can demonstrate they know how to play nice elsewhere first.--MONGO (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question I see there are accusations of hounding, but has there been any biting of the newbies? EEng 18:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'm in favour of at least some sort of boomerang for Atsme. I came here from this deletion review: [123]. After one of the articles Atsme nominated resulted in four straight keep !votes, Atsme stripped all of the citations from the article, making it appear completely unsourced, on grounds they were unreliable - however, it's for the voters at AfD to determine the reliability of sources in the article for WP:GNG purposes, and removing all of the citations made it appear as if no sources for the article existed. I'm pretty active in AfD and DRV and I don't remember anyone doing this before and it comes across as very tendentious. The optics here as if Atsme is trying to "win" as opposed to improve the encyclopaedia, as RoySmith mentioned here: [124]. I haven't reviewed the rest of Normal Ops' conduct here and will be reserving judgment, but I haven't seen any problems with their conduct during my review of the AfD/DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with SportingFlyer, spot-on (above) assessment. I came here after seeing the same troubling Deletion Review and accompanying AfD where Atsme was the nominator. I have been in AfDs where the nominator behaved in such a manner (deleting sources to support their nomination) and I always consider it bad faith. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was accused by that admin, and I responded accordingly. The closing admin is the one who suggested the DRV. In the event you haven't noticed, a disruptive sock that was participating at a high level of disruption at the dog articles and here was recently indef blocked. The editor subject of this ANI - the one who was being defended by that sock - was also blocked for PAs and disruption. You are now casting aspersions against me for no valid reason. I hope editors will take a closer look at that AfD and the sources cited. I'm of the mind that WP:CIR is at issue here if you believe the cited sources are RS for establishing notability. We should not be using puppy mill sites, individually owned & maintained websites by pet lovers and privately owned kennels, marketing sites by dog product companies, promotional sites for health tips, fake registries with anecdotal reports and unverifiable information about the history of a so-called "rare breed" that is nothing more than a profit center. If they were true breeds, they would have already been included in the long-established, reputable breed registries - the ones that date back to the 1800s. I encourage you to continue drawing attention to the problem sources as it will only serve to reinforce my position - maybe even help me recruit knowlegable editors who can help clean-up the mess, and better serve our purpose in building a quality encyclopedia. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I will not go through all of the references with you here, but it shows your COI that you would nominate the article, substantially degrade the article, and then when you still could not achieve the desired result of deletion, you appealed at Deletion Review (It was a strong keep at AfD. One of those sources was the CBC News and some others were books. It is notable per RS and the AfD was closed as it should have been despite your efforts to strip the article of all references. The labradoodle is not accepted either, but it is notable...and it has a WP article. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: - we need a type of WP:Tarage's Law for dog articles - call it The Labradoodle Law - In any sufficiently long Wikipedia discussion about a non-notable dog breed the topic customarily changes to the labradoodle." ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

EEng and his Boxers.

Sorry, I'm boycotting this thread because no one laughed at my earlier joke about HOUNDing and BITEy behavior. EEng 02:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

LOl. If any consolation I got it now. And spit out my tequila. Lightburst (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've always felt that if even one person's burden is lightened by my feeble efforts, it's worth it. So thank you for taking the time to share. EEng 03:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Some of us laugh silently on our sofas, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We all appreciate that you didn't say "... in our underwear". EEng 07:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't edit in your Wikimedia branded boxers? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Given the behavior of Atsme at DRV (generally lots of WP:IDHT) and the stripping of sources (including ones where the publisher is pretty clearly reliable) followed by a nomination for deletion, I think some kind of boomerang is appropriate. No opinion Nomopbs other than Atsme's fairly bullheaded behavior at AfD and DRV makes me wary of their use of AN. Note: I've been dealing with them at DRV and am not neutral on the issue. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope an admin does something about the bad faith editors who have been WP:Casting aspersions (PAs) against me, beginning with the proposer of the boomerang and those supporting it. None of what they've said is true, or supported by diffs. There is a serious lack of respect for the feelings of others, and that needs to change. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is no one is casting aspersions against you, and dismissing those who don't agree with you as casting aspersions/hurting your feelings has actually been a tactic I've seen you use recently (with the blocked editor, but I don't see anything here worth warning anyone over: [125] and calling the AfD closer's response "hurtful" [126], and has already done so twice at this ANI.) The wrinkle here is when you removed all of the sources from the article here [127] the article had already been closed as a keep, though you convinced the original closer to revert their close and relist, so, technically, you didn't remove any sources during an open AfD. That being said, only 45 minutes passed between the close, the complete removal of the sources, and then the reopening of the AfD, which was then for an article without any sources at all. Looking through the page's history, determining the reliability of the sources which were removed isn't necessarily easy - as someone who has never edited about dogs, they all appear borderline, exactly what an AfD is there to assess. It's possible Atsme is correct on the merits, but I'm not really concerned with that - after reviewing the diffs I'm focused on conduct here, especially the rapidity by which they accuse others of casting aspersions, and what looks like gaming the system to get a specific article deleted. I would potentially suggest a two-way IBAN between these two users, and maybe a topic ban as well. SportingFlyer T·C 07:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is your inability to recognize that you are WP:Casting aspersions. Actually, the end result of what you have been focused on instead of what you should be focusing on is that WP now has another article about a unverifiable bully breed that the no-more-pit-bull advocates can use to strengthen their case against innocent dogs that may just resemble a particular dog type even when they are not pit bulls. Our articles will help them verify these non-notable crossbred dogs as having pit bull origins based entirely on anecdotal information. Got scams? High quality RS are trying to clean-up the mess, such as Smithsonian, National Geographic, National Canine Research Council. But here you are defending trash sources suggested by a disruptive advocacy editor who has demonstrated an editing pattern that has raised concerns among some administrators. His focus is on validating non-notable dog types using trash sources if that's all he has to work with, such as the ones he listed at the DRV: Dog Breed Info, Doggie Designer, and ARF, a defunct small and personal registry that resulted in consumer complaints as a scam and fraud. Also see this discussion. We are clearly dealing with WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SELF, WP:PROMOTION, Wikipedia:NOT, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV, the latter of which states: 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is also WP:NRV and WP:FRINGE. Yes, I removed 4 horrible sources, which is not an actionable offense, but you refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK and are casting aspersions, and that is an actionable offense. Sorry - this isn't about me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is primarily a content dispute, and I'm not here because I care about the content dispute, it's because I continue to be incredibly concerned with your conduct - I'm here to put on the record the fact you are clearly editing tendentiously to try to "win" this content dispute. Since my last response to you, you've also accused someone else who disagrees with what you're doing of casting aspersions at the DRV [128]. This IS about you, and trying to move the goalposts to claim you're winning the content dispute on the merits is yet another case of WP:IDHT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• On the overall gist of this, I have to concur with Atsme. The "NoMoPBs" editor, who has now changed username to disguise their WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problem has already been warned by multiple editors (e.g. at WT:DOGS) that a topic ban would be likely if they did not desist pushing a viewpoint, and here we are. There dog breeds topic just periodically attracts WP:GREATWRONGS nonsense, for which a T-ban is the cure if the disruption continues. I don't have an opinion on whether any aspersions/NPA stuff is at stake, not having pored over every word between these editors. Doesn't matter. The topical disruption is sufficient for the T-ban. Oppose boomerang and I-ban stuff. Removing unreliable sources isn't a wrong. Nor is reasonable criticism of an editor's behavior. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC); updated 17:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• close this drama thread. Atsme removed clearly unreliable sources per WP:RS . Normal Op, or whatever this editor’s name is now, clearly does not understand the line between NPOV and POV-pushing. I suggest a T-Ban on Normal op for, say, 90 days or more if needed, to assist them in learning how to edit collaboratively and understanding WP:RS. Montanabw^(talk) 00:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support limited topic ban Getting back on topic to the topic ban, I've looked through all of the contributions made by Normal Op/Nomopbs (and speaking as someone who knows little about dogs), there's a mix of edits which are clearly POV-pushing and there's a mix of edits which seem okay. A limited topic ban on bulldogs and pit bulls might work, I wonder if a final warning on any advocacy-pushing edits may be a better alternative, along with a temporary two-way interaction ban. I don't see any problems with any of Normal Op's edits in the AfD and DRV, which has been the focus of my involvement in this ANI thread until now, but agree there's enough evidence of a larger problem. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

SF, there is nothing I’ve done that warrants a 2-way i-Ban. I’m of the mind that i-Bans in general are set-ups to fail and do more harm than good. In this particular case, we have a very clear remedy for dealing with advocates. Prior to realizing the seriousness of what we were dealing with during the Staffordshire Bull Terrier GA review, I exercised patience and welcomed Nomopbs as a collaborator because I believe all prominent views belong in an article. We tried to explain the GA review process which he claimed to be unaware of but even after we explained, he continued the disruption - see the diffs I provided in my initial presentation. The responses I received when attempting to collaborate with this editor were only the beginning of his bullying, the projecting of his own bad behavior onto others, and relentless tendentious editing that was yet to come. It is highly unlikely that you will come across a female editor purposely provoking a bully - bullies don’t need provocation. In fact, such bullying is why we have fewer female editors. I’m pretty thick-skinned, and have always tried to respond with kindness and understanding but what I presented as my reason for being here now is a good summary of why a t-ban is needed in this case. It is rare that a SPA account is going to stop POV pushing voluntarily. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for topic-banning individuals with POVs, and I'm concerned by recent edits such as this [129], but looking through all of the evidence I just don't see a need at this time. A lot of the recent conduct which led up to the ANI isn't enough for a block, in my opinion, and the user has made enough positive non-POV contributions recently that I just think either a final warning or only a temporary t-ban is needed. If you don't see a need for a two-way, that's fine, I'll drop the request. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I truly do understand your hesitancy. I had similar feelings and expressed them in my initial filing, but if you'll look at the diffs he used against me (many of which are simply repeat innocuous diffs) it speak volumes about his behavior. Look at his editor contributions and the date when he began. I'm seeing WP:ADVOCACY. I'm not the only editor who has had issues. If you get a chance, review this diff again. He changed his name from Nomopbs to Normal Op but it doesn't erase what he has already done since he first began editing. He was warned and refused to change - it is never his fault. He is a SPA on a mission as his edit contribs demonstrate. Review his interactions at Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I was of the same mind you are now but things changed. His mission is quite obvious - identify "pit bull" breeds in WP regardless of the modifications to modern breeds or the fact that their centuries old ancestry is based on anecdotal information. WP is neither a SOAPBOX or a place to RGW. The reason I believe it is extremely important, especially as it applies to RS and context, is explained well in the following articles: [130], PLOS ONE, Smithsonian, and there is also BBB, WaPo, and we certainly don't want to be the source that legitimizes a fake/unrecognized breed that ends up on a Buzz Feed quiz or a family pet being euthanized simply because of misidentification. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've looked through Staffordshire Bull Terrier (not the talk page) and the only concerning edit I see from Normal Op is this diff, and it appears their first edit to the page (new user, didn't go back farther in the years to check.) Everything else appears generally constructive, including areas where they have written about non-existent breeds. For instance, this edit at least appears to try to separate the Staffordshire dog from an American Pit Bull. I'd prefer either a final warning or a short term, maybe 30 days, narrow, pit bull specific ban to see if Normal Op can continue making positive contributions outside of their start as a POV editor. SportingFlyer T·C 04:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Again with the pit bull stuff? I've never even edited the Pit bull article, nor most of any of the allegedly-pit-bull-type breed articles. If you look at my ACTUAL contributions to Fatal dog attacks in the United States you'll find I add all fatal events regardless of dog breed. I started editing in Wikipedia on a day when another fatality happened (11/2/2018), and I noticed that half of the fatal events for 2018 were MISSING. So I signed up and started researching in order to add what was missing, and continued going earlier through the years filling in the missing events... and I just never stopped. I branched out into breed articles and other related topics. My alleged advocacy about pit bulls (pro or con?) is a figment that doesn't exist in my edits. On 11/2/2018 when I first edited, 31 dog-bite related fatalities (DBRFs) had occured for 2018, but only 18 were entered into Wikipedia. All 12 NON-pit bull DBRFs had already been entered into Wikipedia, but only 6 of the 19 pit bull DBRFs had been entered, leaving 13 missing pit bull DBRFs. (Before [131] and after [132]) If you're seeking 'advocates' on which to lay some fault, why not ask yourself which editor or editors deliberately omitted entering those 13 pit bull events (but didn't miss those others)? I have simply been filling in the blanks, and since that day I have entered numerous non-pit bull DBRFs. I don't discriminate. Normal Op (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose boomerang or IBAN I don't think Atsme is the problem here. Atsme showed marked restraint in their dealing with Normal Op. The real problem here was Normal Op's disruptive behavior (which hopefully could be remedied by a topic ban). Atsme is not the first to have a problem with Normal Op (see past ANI), and frankly an Iban is overkill. Don't shoot the messenger. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• T-ban While I would say that Atsme is in general far too hasty to throw around "Gaslighting" as a phrase, this looks pretty clear cut, notwithstanding that statement. I only bring it up because I was in fact one of the people accused of gaslighting Atsme in the Antifa scuffle. But here what I see is an SPA who seems to have an agenda evincing a lot of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND tendencies who writes massive (albeit very meticulously organized) text walls. IE: a person who might be productive, but not here. Suggest they go on to edit other parts of Wikipedia with nothing to do with dogs. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of Normal Op from all dog articles, canine articles and pet articles, broadly construed. For obvious reasons, these articles attract legions of fans, promoters and haters. There are plenty of appealing unreliable sources about pets online. Therefore, it is essential that we always rely on the highest quality and widely accepted reliable sources. Persistent efforts to push garbage sources must be met with a topic ban. I oppose an interaction ban or any sanction against Atsme while encouraging Atsme to strive to be less confrontational in such situations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: The case is weak and doesn't stack up. Normal Op technically should not be saying "WTF" or be WP:SHOUTing, but these are minor WP:CIVIL offenses. What are you counting as PA?

Also I am not seeing undue advocacy in this edits. It just looks like two POV editors disagreeing over e.g. whether to adhere to the staffie topic or elaborate on "Breeder-specific laws".

I should think Lightburst, Hobit, SportingFlyer quite justified in criticizing the deletion prior to DRV. On [133] the deleted Dog World (2005) book was a Ten Speed Press imprint and not a slam-dunk non-RS, so shouldn't have been removed by fiat without discussion prior to DRV. This is tantamount to "bad faith" conduct. It is not as if we are second-guessing you've acted blackheartedly or anything like that, so this "casting aspersions" complaint need not apply.

I will call out Cullen328 et al on lack of vigilance here. Sure, the 16 sources that NoOp listed turn out mostly to be questionable websites or WP:SELFPUB, I can see that. But it included a couple of TV news pieces plus 1 other book [134] which has roughly a column/halfpge on the cross-breed, published by I-5 Publishing which, though I did not know, used to put out Dog Fancy magazine. So Cullen's "Persistent efforts to push garbage sources" is hardly fair, given that NoOp frankly admitted he hadn't yet had the chance to go through the vetting of his list that had a mix of the good and bad, and hadn't gone on to use any of the bad ones in articles. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone fix the "small" tags in this discussion - all this humour is all very well, but it is making the rest of the page difficult to read.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Nigel Ish: I fixed it but you edit conflicted with me lol. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ngokevin rapid fire promotional campaign in progress

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This account is two days old with 30 edits. At least 29 of the 30 edits are to publicize a particular presidential candidate, and the 30th is a sort of covering edit for one of the 29. Most have been reverted. For example, at the PowerPoint article they inserted that this candidate said they would use PowerPoint at the state of the union address if elected.

They are also clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor operating in a rapid-fire highly organized and clever fashion. Which raises other concerns. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not out of the ordinary for Yang supporters; see eg this video. Definitely a SPA at the moment but offer guidance and AGF? Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

They've gotten the necessary guidance: "Stop!" If they continue, block as SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. This is not just an SPA (which we don't block for as such) but a NOTHERE issue. Right now they're not continuing, but people are watching. Bishonen | talk 05:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC).

They are obviously an experienced editor editing under a 2 day-old account. I guess a lot of things could happen next including another brand new account. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, North8000, but those edits are so unusual that if another brand new account starts making similar ones, it'll be a really obvious duck. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC).

Yes, and the people at the articles were catching some of the edits. Most likely one of those would look at the account's edit history. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Could this be a AndInFirstPlace (talk · contribs) sock? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Framly optimisticwas railroaded!]]} 20:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This account was created on 7 April 2016 and didn't do anything at all until six days ago. It's clearly a sleeper sock but I cannot say of who. Their comment that they're an "expert on the policies of that candidate" ([135], later corrected to "informed on" [136]) is concerning since they only seem to have woken up to put Yang's name into as many articles as possible. Could be AIFP, I had a look at behaviour and AIFP is definitely a Yang enthusiast although their more recent socks just seem to want to be disruptive on the primaries generally, and Ngokevin doesn't have enough talk page posts to really compare. I doubt CU would tell us anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Would anyone mind terribly if I blocked as a spam only account?-- Deepfriedokra 18:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's a bit stale, but I don't see why not - even if the content is well-sourced, the account only exists to promote one topic. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

As Bishonen said, being a SPA is not a blockable offense. Looks to me like the disruption has stopped, so no block is needed. A higher warning level might be in order, to make sure he has gotten the point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to have missed a letter. Deepfriedokra was suggesting blocking N as a SPAM account, not as a SPA -- and that we do indeed block for Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a hunch they have stopped. Last edit 1 week ago. ANd yes, SPAMMERS are blocked indefinitely. A final warning would not hurt, but again, I think they've finished. I went ahead and final warned them. -- Deepfriedokra 19:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I think Bishonen's point was that SPAness was not the issue but that WP:NOTHERE was. We also block for NOTHERE.-- Deepfriedokra 20:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, it's a potential NOTHERE issue, but Bishonen also noted the behavior had stopped. And people are still saying "the account only exists to promote one topic" which sounds like a SPA complaint. Blocks are not punitive; maybe this editor will see the light and do good. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

And people say I'm overly optimistic. -- Deepfriedokra 21:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Mztourist's disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user continuously makes disruptive editing on article Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991.[137] He keeps claiming he has "consensus" and refusing to resort to DR process without any proper reasoning in line with WP:CON.[138] 1.43.12.127 (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

there is consensus on the Talk page, but you won't accept it. Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the definition by WP:CON. 1.43.12.127 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There are three active editors on the page. Both of them disagre with the IP. Absent additional eyes, I'd suggest the IP is evincing WP:IDHT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 the problem is, after the course of discussion, they have ceased to protest the editing since May. A new consensus has been reached since then. 129.78.56.207 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no "new consensus" and I have opened an SPI against the multiple IPs who keep changing the page, including 129.78.56.207.Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the page and there have been good points made with regard to the reliability of the sources; but the presence of a "new consensus" is entirely unclear, and it remains the case that I see nothing at all disruptive or problematic about Mztourist's edits. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock necessary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Breitbart's fanbase are venting their spleen on some editors in the Antifa (United States) arena and cycling IPs when they pull a block. 184.75 range. Here's the relevant IPs so far:

184.75.100.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 184.75.98.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can we get a rangeblock to deal with this nuisance? Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This range is 184.75.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and appears to be assigned to Starbucks, with other users making constructive edits even as the vandalism is ongoing. The two IPs reported so far are already blocked individually, let's see if that takes care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:Lesacrick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Hi, this user has made multiple changes that seems to be in a bad faith in two edits. Like for example,

• changed Arab architecture to Somali architecture, when the source says clearly Arab architecture.[139] "This portion of the city is constructed from locally available coral blocks, bleached white and built in traditional Arab architecture with archways, latticework’s, and ornate wooden doors and shutters." and when confronted about it they removed it entirely
• Adding "most likely" when there is no source that says most likely, it's their editorial point of view.
• Adding "but the place is far too ancient for west Asian influence" without providing a relevant source. Basically it is either unsourced or original research.
• Removed content and replaced it with less reliably sourced content because –I don't know why.
• Removed this "Another nearby section of the city, just to the north, called Shangani, also features a similar arrangement in street irregularity and structure. Numerous mosques of varying age and size and elaborateness dot this section of the city." without providing a reason.

on Top of all of that edit warring and not using WP:BRD guideline. This user is 5 hours old and already making disruptive edits and editwarring.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Not really. I only expanded a section with many references and you have tried to remove it.

Everything you have listed is not true. I simply removed the weak sourced paragraph and extended the other section and I have been very nice to you until you kept doing the same thing like edit wars. I haven't done any edit wars. You're removing what I am contributing. I have even given an explanation on the talk page.

As for me changing is not true. I accidentally used the wrong old revert and removed it when you check now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogadishu

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I am learning. You simply misunderstood me and I tried talking to you but you just keep reverting and ignoring me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesacrick (talk • contribs) 06:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you replaced reliably sourced content with another content, replaced Arab architecture with Somali architecture while the source says Arab architecture, you used biased language "most likely", added unsourced unrelated [to the name of Muqdisho] content, "but the place is far too ancient for west Asian influence" etc etc. You are damaging Wikipedia, unfortunately. We are here to build an encyclopedia not to feed our POVs.-SharabSalam (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not the one who is ignoring you. You are the one who is refusing to learn. Didn't I tell you to seek consensus in the talk page? Didn't I cite to you WP:BRD guideline and you didn't follow it? How am I suppose to help you when you are refusing my help?.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Lesacrick, if you are truly willing to solve this issue, you need to seek consensus in the talk page while reverting your edits to the old stable version. I don't think you are able to do that, because disruptiveness is likely what you came here for.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop making it seem like I'm the evil person when you're refusing to have a dialogue with me. The source itself says "most likely" when you click the link so that's why I added that but since you kept attacking the page. I figured I removed it because I was trying to calm things down and not have edit wars. If anyone came for disruptiveness it's you because you're removing the sections I have contributed and expanded on. I even added many authentic references and only removed the weak source.

I also told you that I didn't change the letters. I simply and accidentally reverted to the wrong page but I fixed it.

If I can piggyback on this, can I also draw attention to User:Lesacrick's edits to the pages on the the Kilwa Sultanate and the Ajuran Sultanate? I have reversed the ones on the Kilwa Sultanate (as I am more familiar with it). Lesacrick engaged in some pretty amusing Mogadishu-pushing, with off-hand assertions about vassalage and battles without any references, and pregnantly biased language ("second richest after Mogadishu") . He replicated a citation of a book that was already there, which I happen to have, which makes no such assertions. I have yet to comb through the Ajuran Sultanate page, where he did a lot of modifications (including the same ones about asserting that Kilwa was a Mogadishu vassal state, etc.) But coupled with the evidence above, this is beginning to seem like a pattern of nationalistic POV-pushing rather than an earnest attempt at editing. While it is not yet an edit-war, I'd like to prevent it becoming one. A stunning amount of activity for a one-day account. Walrasiad (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I already try to level with you but you took many approaches of slandering me and making it seem like just because I am new. I am some problem. That is not what Wikipedia promotes. The only person who is removing stronger sources, extended sections and replacing it with weaker sources is you so I suggest you go to talk page and I will explain the historical records in detail and please do not seek edit wars and solve it in a civilized way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesacrick (talk • contribs) 06:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Lesacrick, again, you are the one who is not subscribing to WP:BRD with me. When you make a bold edit and replace content and you get reverted, you need to seek consensus in the talk page instead of reverting. That's how things go in Wikipedia.. "Most likely" is source to the source you gave which is the site phonebookoftheworld and you removed the peer-reviewed source while adding that. That doesn't sound impartial time to me and it seems that you gave undue weight to phonebookoftheworld, yet you are insisting that you want to damage Wikipedia and to not allow any discussion except while your version is in the article. For me it is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia but it is too early to tell. Will see if you are going to listen to what I advised you and self-revert yourself and seek consensus in the talk page or you will make it clear that you have "little or no interest in working collaboratively".--SharabSalam (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even Somali but I do not subscribe to nationalism on Wikipedia. I have looked into your contribution and you belong to the same ethnicity as the guy who changed the content with another content (that you're mostly arguing about) and yet you did not revert his pages but soon as I remove his outdated references and mostly false traditions. I replaced them with bigger paragraphs and more references of academics and scholars. You then revert my pages, why? This kind of hypocrisy shows your true colours. This is clear favouritism and racism. That's the worst thing you can do in Wikipedia and you're attacking and damaging the page I am heavily contributing to.

I even went to talk page explaining the reasons for my edit like a professional and you didn't bother going to talk the page until I called you. I tried to level with you when you read the chat on your profile and I hope the administers can see how didn't bother having a dialogue with me but instead came with distrucuptive edit wars and damaging Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesacrick (talk • contribs) 07:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Lesacrick You are talking about this edit? That is not related to your edits and if I noticed that edit I would have asked for providing a reliable source. You basically changed "Arab architecture" to "Somali architecture" while the source says Arab. You replaced reliable source with phonebookoftheworld.com etc etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the edits made about changed "Arab architecture" to "Somali architecture" was a false edit but I did not do that. I simply reverted to the old and wrong page but I clarified for you and fixed it. You have been disruptive, repeated, consistent, and have continued to occur despite numerous messages, warnings, and requests froom me to stop. It's also clear that this disruption is unlikely to stop unless administrative actions are taken in order to intervene and set expectations. Due to the ongoing disruption reported here and what I've observed from most recently Ajuran Sultanate. If you stop attacking my contribution then this will give you the opportunity to contribute positively elsewhere on Wikipedia, while imposing fair and necessary edits and actions to maintain an acceptable and collaborative editing environment without outright reverting contributors. I'm hoping that this will put an end to the disruption and you will learn not to next time attack every page the member of Wikipedia have contributed to. I'm not even attacking your pages but you're attacking mine. It's not cool. Let's have a proper discussion in Mogadishu page and don't cause edit wars in multiple fronts.

I also told you this before. If you have a problem with a specific edit. Then come to talk page and discuss what you don't like then I am happy for you to change or bring that but don't remove everything I have added. It's not fair and goes against the guidelines.

Also, I'm even on your talk page. Let us discuss the weak content I removed. I can show you evidence the scholar shown on the article I removed that these are simply traditions but not actual historical documents. This is why I removed the medieval paragraph and extended the real origins in the atiquity section.

Lesacrick, The Arab architecture is not the only problem with your edits and you didn't fix it, you removed it entirely when I confronted you in the talk page..you have replaced sourced content with another content less reliably sourced to phonebookoftheworld and gave it undue weight with biased tone. You mix lots of edits all at once and refuse to engage in the talk page.

For Ajuran Sultanate, Walrasiad brought my attention to them in their comment which you tried to remove and guess what? they are disruptive.. First you changed Arabic from being official to "religious" without providing a source for that. You made Barbara (region) to Barbara which is a disambiguation page also Somali region to Somalia.

You changed this sourced info "Its origin lies in the Garen Kingdom that during the early 13th century ruled parts of the  Ogaden, the Somali region of eastern Ethiopia." to this "Its origin lies in the 9th century during the Mogadishu Sultanate which it succeed from during the early 13th century and began to rule southern and central Somalia and eastern Ethiopia." and also many other things you changed without providing sources. You also added a source without page number etc. lots of disruptive edits in one edit mixed with good edit. I can't simply single out one or two good edits in that article.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's because I read through the book. It mentions more than that. That's why I added it. You make it seem like I am making it up. I don't care about dates. Just some editors don't say the whole thing the book says. Also, there is no edit disrupting. I reverted back to the old page because it contain many more references.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV push and destruction of page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

POV push and destruction of the Page Kurdistan Regional Government who was redirected. But the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) really exists. A simple search on Google helps.[140]

This is obvious manipulation and vandalism by this user Ahmedo Semsurî[141] تہجی (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

159.146.0.0

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shrink the IP block to 159.146.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), please – the /16 mask originated from incorrect range arithmetic and wiki gregariousness. Another affected half Special:Contribs/159.146.128.0/17 is a usual mobile customer range in Ukraine. See m:Steward requests/Global #Global block for extremely disruptive LTA and simple:User_talk:Vermont #Carpet bombing for more background. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done. ST47 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

Someone working at the NFTA or close to it keeps adding unsourced information to Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority and other area transit articles.
Buffalo Metro Rail is currently set to autoconfirmed as a result.
The current address is 2604:6000:130E:86B8:D804:B314:DCFF:183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which could use a rangeblock at this point.
Previous ip addresses include:
2604:6000:130E:86B8:65B0:A3D0:F476:63AE (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:6000:130E:86B8:E0D7:A1A6:8E0B:5F0F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:6000:130E:86B8:880D:7CBA:150D:BC2E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:6000:130E:87DA:6C67:B958:CD4:69A3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2604:6000:130E:87DA:6CBA:DA67:FECC:77FF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This is not to be confused with 2604:6000:774A:E100:C1E2:CF94:1805:D501 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was a sock of The Train Master. Cards84664 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• The only addition is a statement in the second diff about a hub opening in 2015. The other diff is deleting paragraph breaks. Do you think the information to be false? Why do you think that? Why do you think that someone who adds this sort of information to an article should be blocked? Why is your reaction to revert the addition? Why is your reaction not to look for a source confirming it? Uncle G (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• There's a reason we have a {{uw-unsor4}} warning that says "you will be blocked next time you add unsourced content", and a reason that MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown (a dropdown with common block reasons that admins are given when blocking) includes an item for "persistent addition of unsourced content". It doesn't matter whether it's true or false: unsourced additions damage the project, and they need to be reverted and prevented somehow. Nyttend (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, a single piece of unsourced, but clearly correct, information was added; as noted, everything else was just changing paragraph breaks (although for some reason the diff is showing it as long additions and deletions). A block for this would be unwarranted, and a rangeblock would be an extreme and completely unjustified response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"unsourced, but clearly correct"? If its unsourced, how do we know it is correct? Britmax (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

From the link in Uncle G's comment above is one way. (I'm not sure why this group of edits deserves this much attention.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editing at Hippie and now Hipster

I am involved with the content dispute so would like other eyes on this. An IP editor had been deleting content about drug use from the lead of Hippie that is well-supported by many references in the body. I added two new references to the lead, but they persist in removing content, now arguing bizarrely and falsely that cannabis is not a drug. The behavior has carried over to Hipster where they altered a verbatim quotation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

They're blanked their userpage, removing the warnings and notifications that have piled up in a few hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 60 hours. El_C 22:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

They hopped to a fresh IP address, and engaged in the same behavior at Lumberjack. I blocked the second IP and semi-protected Hippie and Lumberjack. Uninvolved editors, please watch these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It would speed things up if you provided a link to the involved accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And it is Hipster (contemporary subculture), not Hipster. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2001:8003:401E:EF00:39B3:8BE2:9C08:B886 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2604:2000:718E:7200:71D1:D3DD:7935:7882 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Sorry for my failure to disambiguate, Liz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The first IP is part of a static /64 that has been doing a lot of edit warring, and I've blocked it for six months. The second IP geolocates to a residential connection on the other side of the planet. I assume it's some kind of unregistered proxy. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The use of "drop it" in the edit summaries of edits from both an IP from the /64 range and the residential IP tell me that these are likely the same user (see diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). Cullen328's block on the residential IP for block evasion was a good call IMO. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not claim to be a proficient sock detective, Oshwah, but sometimes things are obvious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 - HA! Nonetheless, you made the right call with that IP block. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ophelia Lovibond#Filmography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Don't know how to fix table. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Table fixed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated vandalism inspite of warnings

Joel David 99 has been repeatedly warn not to add unverified information to Delhi Dynamos FC and other Indian Football related pages, but he continues such behaviour such as this. Coderzombie (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey u, Delhi moved to bhubaneswar odisha so I change it to Odisha FC officially Delhi announced that they are shifting to bhubaneswar.so u first to know about everything then u lodge a complaint to the administrator.Joel David 99 (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Static IP making nothing but unsourced changes to population figures

Special:Contributions/200.233.179.177 appears to be a static IP in use by the same person since 2017. The few edits they've made have been nothing but unsourced changes to population figures. They've continued recently despite multiple user warnings and a block. --IamNotU (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU - How did you find out for certain that this IP address is static? Because an IP appears to be static or hasn't changed hands for quite some time doesn't mean that it's really a static IP. This user hasn't edited since August 23 (just over seven days); I can't justify blocking this IP or taking any administrative action now and after the IP user has long since gone stale... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, thanks for your answer and explanation. I don't think it's technically possible to be certain that it's static, is it? But it obviously passes the duck test, wouldn't that apply here? They've made the exact same edit to the Italians article three times, in November 2017 [142], September 2018 [143], and March 2019 [144], and two very similar edits to German diaspora, in October 2017 [145] and September 2018 [146]. For the past two years, 100% of the edits have been unsourced changes to sourced population numbers, almost all about the population of Brazil, in each case leaving the new figures contradicting the existing source, for example: [147].

In most cases the changes were eventually reverted (sometimes after weeks or months), but some were never caught and have remained in the articles until today, e.g.: [148] and [149]. There's no evidence of any other behavior or anyone else using the IP. I don't know what the rules are about IPs being "stale". I could try to keep an eye on their contributions, but I don't think I'd be able to check every day in order to catch them in the act. Since they edit so infrequently, a week-long block probably isn't going to have much effect anyway. It seems to me that the value of a longer-term block to stop what is obviously one person who has for years done nothing but add made-up statistics would outweigh the slim-to-none chance that it's actually a dynamic IP with multiple unrelated people making the exact same edits. But I don't always understand the way things work here... --IamNotU (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi IamNotU! Some networks and ISPs will detail in the WHOIS that the network IP distribution is static; others won't. This is really the only way that we can "guarantee" that an IP is static; the network information or ISP in the WHOIS would say so. ;-) In this situation, I would absolutely agree that this IP is likely allocated to the same person whose added each edit listed in the contributions... that, or it's a ridiculous coincidence. All this aside, admins will usually hold off on taking administrative action against users if they're now stale or are no longer engaging in the disruption or conduct specified. This is due to making sure that any blocks applied are done so in a preventative measure, and not a punitive one. How long an editor has gone without making an edit or engaging in the activity reported - and whether or not it'll be considered "too much time" as far as an admin taking action or not - will obviously vary depending on the severity of the problem or offense, the admin who looks into the case, and other variables... the general rule is that you typically want to report the user while the repeated disruption is currently being made or currently in progress, or at least as close to that timeline as possible. In situations like this where the editing is very sporadic and low, doing this can be quite difficult, and I generally cut some slack in that regard (often because people try and take advantage of that situation and use it to dance around getting blocked). But we also don't have enough information nor do we have activity that's recent. Putting a stop to the edits by this IP would require quite a lengthy block due to how often edits come from it. Technically, this IP could change hands during that time, too (since we truly don't know if it's static). This creates problems as well. However, putting all this aside, we can start at square one: We need to have a report during a time where their last edit was recent, then make a decision from there. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for the explanation Oshwah. I guess I can understand wanting to err on the side of caution. Hopefully the next time they make one of these edits, someone will catch it in good time... --IamNotU (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU - No problem. :-) Don't worry... It may not be today, but if the user continues their shenanigans, we'll put a stop to it once the right time occurs. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE issues and derogatory language from Jean Louis Van Belle/212.224.224.59

• Jean Louis Van Belle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 212.224.224.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zitterbewegung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was alerted to this user's edits by a message from MaoGo at WikiProject Physics. I found that the text they added includes a lot of WP:SYNTH and editorializing (it is "puzzling" that Dirac did this and "baffling" that he did not do that; the ideas of thus-and-so are "elegant and attractive"; a random historical factoid "may be usefully mentioned"). It was also replete with unreliable sources, like three instances of the author promoting their own viXra postings, and two "citations" to personal emails they received. It also violated WP:DUE and MOS:LEAD by overloading the introduction with excessive detail about minority viewpoints (presented in a SYNTH-etic way). Accordingly, I removed it. While I had the page open, I wikilinked the journal titles in the bibliography, an edit they decided to undo. They are now wasting time on my Talk page, opening with a personal attack, editing their own comments after being replied to (and making a false claim in the process), and making further personal attacks amid angry boasting. I am more amused than anything else (Look bastard [...] I've got credentials — I mean, that's comedy gold). But this individual seems willing to waste an arbitrarily large amount of the community's time.

They've edited from a logged-in account and from an IP, but without any attempt to appear like multiple people.

XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't really like escalating to the drama boards, but since it seems they'd rather yell at me than start a discussion at any of the venues I pointed them to, I figured any intermediate dispute-resolution steps would merely delay the inevitable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a ton of WP:OR. As far as I can tell, none of his research has been peer-reviewed. Honestly it looks like he's just trying to self-promote more than anything. Although I do have to say, I am a real-life amateur physicist. You are a self-appointed censor? gave me a laugh - Frood (talk!) 19:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• @XOR'easter: thanks for noticing such a large mess, I was busy and I had not read the article. I had just saw the large number of edits, rising suspicion. Certainly citing a private conversation with a Wikipedia user as a source was a clue that something was very wrong. They are personally attacking XOReaster that is an unacceptable behavior.--MaoGo (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's plain blanket censorship. An article on the Zitterbewegung without mentioning Hestenes interpretation of it - and without referencing all of the other research it generated on electron models - is pretty useless. I also don't think the Zitterbewegung interpretation of QM is a 'minority interpretation'. In any case, if this is the level of intellectual seriousness at Wikipedia then I'll refrain from trying to contribute to it. My papers have not published in scientific journals but - if you bother to check - they do get dozens or even hundreds of downloads. And, yes, at least I am confident enough to mention my real name and references to real work - as opposed to what the current article looks like: copy and paste of dated an fairly irrelevant material. Good luck. Jean Louis Van Belle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Louis Van Belle (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's original research, and a self-published source. Having a bunch of downloads proves nothing. If we started accepting any self-published research with nobody reviewing it, then we'd have a bunch of pages explaining why vaccines cause autism, and how Bush did 9/11. It's not censorship to remove material that have no reliable sources. - Frood (talk!) 19:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC) was

it sound like Jean Louise Van Belle has a lot of detailed knowledge of this subject area. As a compromise, what if we agreed to include the content that he provided, except sourced to a third party published resource rather than to an unpublished physics paper? We need to follow WP:RS while retaining the good informaidon that he has included in the article so far as this is the best approach to make sure that all sides are appeased. Thoughts? Michepman (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

His additions were unacceptable on WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE grounds, even setting aside the unreliable sourcing (and his habit of personal attacks). The content was not worth including, or trying to fix. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

To say it another way, there was no good information. Better footnotes cannot save logorrheic POV-pushing; they can only give it a superficial veneer of respectability. XOR'easter (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Better footnotes would just be Lipstick on a pig. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC).

WP:OR/WP:NOTHERE indeed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Neat someone recognizes some 'detailed knowledge of the subject'. Deleting ALL additions and (very minor) edits to existing contents is an insult. Thanks for the remarks on support to keeping Wikipedia alive as a source of creativity. I would also dare to remark that a 'bunch of downloads' may not prove scientific relevance but - at the very least - relevance for society. There are a lot of moving pieces out there, which may or may not amount to some kind of scientific revolution in the coming decades. Wikipedia had better be part of it. Any case - good work ! Keep it up ! JL PS: Oh - and I do object to 'lipstick on a pig' language. I've served. I also don't think I attacked anyone personally, if only because there is no person to attack here (I am the only one using my real name). I was just furious two days of work got edited out COMPLETELY, without any discussion. That's why I call it censorship. Any case - it doesn't matter. Be happy ! JL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Louis Van Belle (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Being part of something which "may amount to some kind of scientific revolution in coming decades" is just not what we do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We document what is, and what was. What may be is explicitly outside our scope. We are also deliberately not "part of" anything we cover—we strive to present a neutral point of view, like an objective observer. If this amounts to a scientific revolution in coming decades, we will certainly cover it by reporting what reliable sources have written about the subject.--Srleffler (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

At it's core, the issue is not with the scientific value of User:Jean Louis Van Belle's research; it's simply a matter of following the Reliable Source policy (WP:RS). It boils down to just making sure that anything that we have in the article is linked to a source that qualifies under the text of that rule. That does not mean that anyone here wants to denigrate the quality or integrity of anyone's research, only that the rules of the site require us to follow the policy and only include sources that fit Wikipedia's specific, technical definition of a reliable source. Wikipedia is actually not intended to be a source for predictions (see WP:Crystal) or for preempting scientific discoveries -- to wit, it is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Michepman (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Averette and the Cuban sandwich

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Averette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cuban sandwich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Averette has been pushing his POV at Cuban sandwich for literally a dozen years. The sandwich is the center of a friendly rivalry in Florida, with several cities claiming to be home to the best and an uncertain origin which is even disputed by professional historians. It might seem like a silly thing to argue about, but it's such a well-known semi-friendly, semi-heated argument that mayors of Miami and Tampa have traded jabs and jibes in the media over the cubano and a its Wikipedia article was covered in the Tampa Tribune.

As with articles on all controversial topics, it's important to keep a balanced, well-sourced approach that includes all sides.For many years, Averette has insisted on making the article include only one side of the story, and has repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy and norms to do so, as you can see by looking through the massive talk page archives. (Fun reading, let me tell you!) I called for third-party assistance way back in 2007, and in November 2007, User:Athaenara took a look at the sources and helped to work out a fair balance. Since then, Averette has made repeated attempts to undo that balanced version to push his fervent belief that the dish comes from Key West, deleting all other possibilities and adding sources that don't support his claim. In fact, he's often added sources that directly contradict his claim, either because he hasn't actually read them or thinks nobody else will.

He started again last May, when I again requested third-party assistance and dispute resolution. As he usually does, Averette, deleted the requests and just kept reverting, though at least he was using the talk page a bit. I was quite busy over the summer and didn't edit for a few months. I returned a couple weeks ago to find that he'd been hard at work while I was away shaping the article to his liking, again without any sources to back him up. Despite repeated requests, he has yet to discuss anything on a talk page since I restored the article but has simply reverted over and over. Lately, he's been doing so without logging in, perhaps in an attempt to avoid 3-RR. (It's almost certainly the same person, as the IP user is simply reverting and deleting warnings, just like Averette always does.)

Aggressively non-constructive behavior is par for the course for Averette, who has been blocked in the past for exactly the same sort of disruptive editing. I'd really appreciate it if an admin or third-party observer could take a look at the article, get it in shape, and then get Averette to stop his unending POV-push. After a dozen years of the same thing, perhaps a topic ban is called for? Thanks. Zeng8r (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Having watched this for a for months I agree Averette behavior has been sub-optimal. We might be getting to a time when a one revert sanction or a topic ban may be in order. This [[150]] actually makes me think we are at a point where an indef block may be called for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban with firm warning - I agree with Hell in a Bucket. This user doesn't seem to learn even after a block (Per the diffs) and multiple warnings. I would vote to Topic Ban with a firm note stating that if he edits, Cuban Sandwich either under his account or any other, he'll be indeffed. If he doesn't get it, he can't say he wasn't warned ahead of time. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Cuban sandwich and Tampa/Ybor City broadly construed. The comment about Tampa in the diff Hell in a Bucket posted was reprehensible. Support indefinite block if that behavior resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban Never did I think I'd support a sandwich topic ban... who knew a sandwich could be so controversial. I think this warrants inclusion in WP:LAME. I also think a strong warning for this diff is in order. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN was just about to say what Captain Eek said above, I'm having trouble getting over how absurd it is that someone is edit-warring and potentially getting a TBAN over the history of a sandwich. Also, this discussion is making me hungry. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• SPI clerk note - an investigation was filed over Averette's logged-out editing this week. I declined to block based on that because I presumed they just forgot to log in after being away for a significant amount of time, and the page was protected so the damage was limited. If someone wants to block for some other reason, I'm not standing in the way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Propose and support indefinite block for this. If they post comments like that because of a sandwich, no one knows what they'll post when they get into a dispute over something more substantial than that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• This is that has been posted today after the warnings [[151]]. I think the good faith or lack there of is pretty evident. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly that one might just be a copy and paste mistake — it looks like he was trying to post an online ad on another tab and dropped it in wiki by mistake. Careless, but by itself probably is just a silly mistake. His conduct prior to that definitely is inappropriate and should be sanctioned though. Michepman (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• User:Michepman, it could be but it would be really coincidental if you look at that post and this edit [[152]]. Could be wrong but I doubt it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that the ongoing civility violations and personal attacks that Averette has made toward other editors on Talk:Cuban sandwich (see 1, 2, 3, and now 4) alone are a blockable offense, let alone a legitimate reason to support the topic ban proposal (among other reasons). The recent comment made definitely justifies a final warning or only warning (which I have left on Averette's user talk page here); if Averette makes another comment like the one they made here, a block for civility policy violations would be completely justifiable and fair. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support block - Support block or topic ban per User:Hell in a Bucket et al, above. I get that this sandwich thing is serious business to some, and a bit of fun for others, but Wikipedia is not a battleground and there's no reason to allow such toxic and hostile behavior to go unchecked regardless of the underlying subject. Enough is enough IMHO. Michepman (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hide these racist edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/116.93.120.202

https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boricua&oldid=101159543

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardi_B&oldid=774728460

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardi_B&oldid=774597526

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_people_(Dominican_Republic)&oldid=5756071

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_people_(Dominican_Republic)&oldid=5709583

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_people_(Dominican_Republic)&oldid=5800607 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariana Grande lover in Cali (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

We can't do anything here about edits on Spanish Wikipedia or Simple English Wikipedia. The two edits to English Wikipedia are well over two years old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel'd the two on en.wiki-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hide these racist edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&oldid=5533069

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&oldid=5530805

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_people&oldid=5436756 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariana Grande lover in Cali (talk • contribs) 06:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Impersonation by multiple IPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is clear that Cls14, with whom i recently had a dispute, is editing while logged off with multiple IPs and impersonating me on various pages. 2A02:C7F:2282:9800:7D97:BD4C:9975:7621 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2A02:C7F:2282:9800:44CC:12D4:5F09:D378 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were blocked /64 yesterday for that reason, but today 86.172.73.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appeared. Is there a way to deal with that permanently? Radiphus (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

James Bowes has recently been banned for disruptive editing, and he has in the past messed with CLs14's talk page. I do wonder if this is not the same user. Both Cls14 and James Bowes used the same phrases like "jobsworth", "nerds". Esowteric+Talk 14:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

See also Fascsilver024 (talk · contribs) and Libeyellow96 (talk · contribs). Radiphus (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

don't report me to SPI, randiphallus! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commgold419 (talk • contribs)

I have to go to work, so i will not be able to keep reverting this person's attacks. I would appreciate it if someone took action as soon as possible. Radiphus (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have indeffed Fascsilver024 for gross vandalism/personal attack. See also this diff in which they impersonate Radiphus and “admit” to having targeted CLS. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, Commgold419 has been indeffed by User:Cyphoidbomb. And I have semiprotected Radiphus's talk page while this gets sorted out. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Cls14 now claims to have retired from Wikipedia. I don’t think that should stop this investigation (since people retire and return all the time). The evidence here clearly establishes these accounts as socks of Cls14. Someone even gave him a friendly warning about it on his talk page, which he did not deny.[153] I recommend that remaining socks, if any, be indeffed (there may not be any; James Bowes is indeffed, and Libeyellow96 is under investigation), and that Cls14 be censured in whatever way is appropriate for a sockmaster. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, looks like this may be settled. Checkusers to the rescue! 0;-D It turns out that the Cls14 account itself was actually a sock of James Bowes. The other socks named here are also all blocked now, some for socking, some for vandalism. If any more of them turn up, we now know what we are dealing with. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anon IP removing RS cites in order to violate BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Occurring right now. User:2605:6000:6406:5A00:E4F5:96C7:A364:B4E0 is removing WP:RS citations to verify BLP last names, which I have been methodically, one my one, adding to The Challenge: War of the Worlds and The Challenge: War of the Worlds 2. He is wholesale reverting to remove cites and add uncited BLP-vio claims of uncited names.

If you look at the "Cast" section here, you will see the addition of footnotes that 2605:6000:6406:5A00:E4F5:96C7:A364:B4E0 is just simply removing!--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, on his talk page he calls WP:BLP "an asinine rule that's not even wholly followed." --65.78.8.103 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism concerning the name of a family of unix based OSs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

207.215.78.126 seems to be repeatedly changing from Linux to GNU/Linux on Trisquel. This has been changed by the same user 14 times since last August. They have been given several warnings, and show no signs of stopping. The MOS states under MOS:LINUX to leave it as Linux, as does WP:UCRN.

Could someone with a bit more experience than me have a look please.

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Reported on WP:AIV, as this page is for more urgent notifications. Greenman (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't sure if it was counted as vandalism. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gravedancing / Ignoring talk page request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was asked by Eric Corbett to stay off his talk page (diff here) for unproductive comments. EC was indeffed today, and Toa Nidhiki05 has shown up to engage in what can only be described as unproductive comments. This is a sad situation for a number of reasons, and Toa is somehow making it worse. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I made precisely two comments in response to Cassianto, who made this unhelpful and unproductive remark:

• This places ceased being an encyclopaedia a long time ago. Now, it's just a place where a bunch of silly snowflakes hang out and virtue signal to the other libtards around here.

and then proceeded to respond to me with a middle-school insult. I have said literally nothing about anything other than Cassiano's comment about "snowflakes" and "libtards" and have no intention of responding further. Toa Nidhiki05 17:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, Eric Corbett told you quite clearly to stay off his talk page. Why did you return there? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It seemed like the appropriate place to mention to Cassianto that his comment about libtards and snowflakes was unproductive. Perhaps I should have just removed it entirely? I'm not sure how requesting Cassianto to abstain from making further remarks makes anything worse. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what I've said on Eric's page (where I am welcome) you were there whilst you were not welcome. That is the issue here, not me. Cassianto^Talk 17:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett has been indefinetly blocked for sock puppetry. That user no longer has any rights to demand anything. And if other users are going to have a discussion at the blocked users talk page that pertains to Toa, then Toa has a right to respond.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Eric Corbett is blocked not banned. His TP access has not been withdrawn. Neil S. Walker (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What you should have done is stay away Eric's talk page entirely, like he told you to do. Despite the comment above, the conversation had nothing to do with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Toa should have just let it go of course. But I agree with Jojhutton, Toa had the right to respond if he wished to do so. BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No-one appeared to have mentioned Toa by name until they inserted themselves into the discussion - so I don't see how anyone can claim that they were defending themselves.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Libtards?" Well that was obviously directed as someone, so Toa had a right to call that comment out for what it was, even if not mentioned by name.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am a liberal, so maybe the insulting term was directed at me. The general principle, Jojhutton, is that if an editor has been asked to stay off another editor's talk page, they should stay off unless posting required notices. This applies to blocked editor's talk pages, as should be obvious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Good for you, do you want a cookie? I actually agree with Cassianto's statement, at least in part. There is a general liberal bent on this project. However, I will support Toas's right to respond to statments that may seem offensive to him. And since what Toa said had nothing to with Eric Corbett or anything that indefinetly blocked user had said or did, there isn't anything wrong with what Toa said or did, even if asked not to comment at that page in the past.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I could not possibly disagree more with your assessment regarding an editor commenting on another editor's talk page after being told to stay away, but since you seem firm in your opinion, I will refrain from trying to convince you, Jojhutton. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this report can (and should) be closed, as resolved. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Libtards? I'm so impressed, Cassianto. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

I am no administrator, but as a self-proclaimed snowflake and card-carrying libtard (who has apparently succeeded in destroying Wikipedia?), I feel I am entitled to weigh in. I think two things are true: (1) Toa Nidhiki05 was in the wrong. I agree that once asked to stay away from a talk page, an editor should stay away. (2) In this case, given the lack of real harm or prejudice, the proper remedy is an old-fashioned trouting. Reasonable minds can certainly differ (though as a libtard perhaps I don't qualify for that adjective? So confusing). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Whilst it's true TOA that should stay of that user talk page, I'm concerned by the inappropriateness of labeling other users as "libtards" and "snowflakes" that "virtue signal". There's a mountain of uncollegiality(?} in that. FWIW, I've also acted as an SJW. So maybe if people don't want to provoke a reaction, they should not use provocative pejoratives when they post. But back to the original complaint, that was not gravedancing.-- Deepfriedokra 20:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As a conservative, I found the comment to be deeply troubling and borderline offensive. "Libtard" is a term used to insult people in US politics, and it's a combination of "liberal" and "retard". At best, he's saying everyone here is stupid - at worst, he's using a borderline slur. I'm not the language police and we don't have a language police here, but obviously calling people stupid or retarded is not really conductive to building an encyclopedia. That's why I commented. In hindsight, I should have either commented on Cassiano's talk page or reported it, but I did not find it worth filing a report over. I'll refrain from posting there in the future. Toa Nidhiki05 20:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To refresh your memory, Toa Nidhiki05, you did comment on Cassianto's talk page, to template a regular. Then, one minute later, you were chiding him on Eric Corbett's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think ignoring it would have been the best choice. I'm no fan of name-calling, but there's far too much time spent on here (and in general) attempting to control what other people say. Lepricavark (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• ...ahem. I've seen and heard "libtard" be used in many media outlets and had no idea that it was one word made up from two words - I've since looked it up and I apologise for any offence caused through the use of the "tard" part of the word. I have no problem, however, having a dig at liberals, so that stays. Best to all. Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, being a libtard myself (and snowflake, and probably all sorts of other epithets), I'll confess to having thought "what a right-wing asshole" on occasion (though the assholishness was always present independent of political affiliation. In brief: there are assholes "in my camp" just as there are non-assholes among people with whom I disagree politically). I do, however, recommend to just leave out the suffix "-tard" from any form of insult you wish to express. It's just not fun to read for those uninvolved people who have loved ones struggling with mental challenges on a daily basis to see "-tard" being used as a benchmark for stupidity. Of course this makes me "politically correct" and a "libtard", but I still ask you to consider it. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, there are a number of insults that I see regularly that immediately make me discount that person's opinion, of which "snowflake" and "virtue signalling" are two ("SJW" and "Remoaner" are others, along with - on the other side - "gammon", "Brexshitter" and - in the absence of actual evidence - "fascist"). It automatically makes me think "you haven't got an argument, so you're just chucking out insults". Anyway this is probably irrelevant, and this can probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block for category vandal

We have a German IP who likes to remove (seemingly valid) categories from biographies - recent previous addresses include 2.247.249.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2.247.249.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2.247.249.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the current IP is 2.247.251.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Users including @BlameRuiner: and @Babymissfortune: (as well as myself) have reverted the disruption, but it's ongoing. Please can an appropriate range block be implemented? GiantSnowman 13:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• 2.247.248.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 72 hours, it seems to be a somewhat busy range. If that range isn't wide enough to stem the disruption please ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2.247.248.0/22 was also the shortest range that I calculated from the IP addresses listed here, though the range of the network is quite wide (2.247.128.0/17). The rangeblock implemented by Ivanvector should definitely put a stop to (if not a significant damper onto) the disruption from this user. Like Ivanvector said above: If the same disruption continues and it looks to be from the same person and with the same starting IP address block, let either him or myself know (or just ping us both) and we'll be happy to take a look and extend the range block in order to put a stop to the matter. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Oshwah: thanks for that - now back editing from a different range, 80.187.101.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Process violations and canvassing at AfD

User:Störm nominated of a series of lists at AfD. The nomination included a serious canvassing violation, pinging all of the delete voters from a previous AfD. Next User:Störm substantially changed nomination after ivoters participated The present AfD is not even close to the one that that ivoters were considering when these multiple AfDs were nominated. In addition I find that the editors who started the articles were not notified. Example: Editor's talk page (started List of geographers in medieval Islamic world) was never notified. I went to Storm's talk page, but they erased my comment and went to the AfD to make a snarky comment. - Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer: Substantially altered nomination during AfD, canvassing at AfD, and not notifying the editors who started the AfD nominated articles/lists. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't actually suggest any sanction to support Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Supporting what exactly? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

What you are supporting? You should write which policy action you want should be taken against me. I did notified previous AfD participants in good faith as it was a continuation of a discussion. Nothing wrong in it. And, you only one participant joined current AfD. So, zero net effect. Störm (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. My proposal is to withdraw the AfdD nominations and it can be renominated without the obvious canvasing and other procedural violations that I have outlined. The nominator Storm should be warned about the AfD behavior and process. Lightburst (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't see anything here that warrants admin intervention. Störm could have done a better job of notifying article creators but your claim that he only pinged the delete voters from a previous AfD is somewhat disingenuous because all voters there voted delete. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no rule prohibits nominators from modifying the list of articles being considered for deletion and Störm left a timestamped comment highlighting the time at which the list was edited. Any closing admin should be paying enough attention to be able to deal with this. What exactly do you want an admin to do here? Sam Walton (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thoughts - so the canvassing issue isn't clear-cut. Storm didn't just slectively ping delete !voters, which would be a massive issue. He pinged every user in an AfD, all of which happened to !vote delete. Now, this method could still be abused by selectively picking discussions, but it is not clear bad faith. As far as I can tell, your diffs for serious canvassing and pinging are the same - it's not a pattern of behaviour. The change in nomination is poor, as is fundamentally confuses discussion. Depending on the interpretation of the first delete !vote, it's either "legal" but unhelpful or violating the rules on self-withdrawals, as it's not clear whether the first delete !vote is one to delete all the listed articles. Your comment on their talk page was fine but, as always, they're free to remove it. Which was the snarky comment made in response? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinged every editor except the editors who started the articles who obviously may have another opinion. Seems clear that the nominator believes the lists should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear I agree it is messy and confusing and I commented on the AfD. The nominator was snarky in response. Lightburst (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: - I need to note that while I agree it is confusing, I disagree with your judgement that it's a clear violation and bad faith by Storm. Their response is indeed somewhat snarky, but not particularly problematic. Nosebagbear (talk)

• @Lightburst: - the creators and the participants of the related AfD are distinct groups - he isn't required to balance one legitimate group with another. Notifying article creators isn't required, though Twinkle does it for the primary listed (so he did do it for top of list but not the others). If they are actually taken as a group it could be considered to a breach of the non-partisan requirement, though as we'd be fine with them individually contacted that would be pushing it. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:AFDLIST It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. For your convenience, you may use subst:Adw It is our practice - to notify major contributors by long standing consensus. Lightburst (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's considered civil (and just helpful) to do so, it is not required. As evidence for that viewpoint I'd note that it's very rare for anyone to notify the major, non-creator, contributors of articles submitted to AfD, and we don't suggest tagging every nominator for their failure. I believe that Storm's (in)actions do not reach a level of needing formal warning and rebuke. As to the AfD, I'm open to other non-involved parties thoughts as to what, if any, action should be taken. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I think members of the Article Rescue Squadron should be careful about accusing other editors of canvassing given that they run a forum dedicated to canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A stunning comment from an administrator. I have taken note of your animosity and prejudice. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed solution - It seems like the core issue is that [[User:Storm[ failed to notify the creator of the articles that he nominated for deletion. Instead of closing those discussions en masse, a better solution might be to reach out to each of the creators and let them know about the discussion so that they can participate if they choose to do so. I don't think there's any need to close those discussions especially when the canvassing issue isn't a clear-cut bad faith attempt to game consensus. Michepman (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with NRP here, although I also believe ARS does good work when members involved actually work on the article and do not simply go on with "passes GNG"-type arguments. I've seen both happen, I see that sort of canvassing as a double-edged sword imho. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK:. I did that last night. Posted the AfD template notice on talk pages of the many list creators. Lightburst (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

TNT the current AFD and start over by nominating pages individually. The current "collection" of list pages in this AFD, to put it kindly, incoherent at best. My !vote addresses only the list page mentioned in the title/heading of the nomination, not the rest of the pages mentioned later, which seems to have changed since the AFD started (that alone is grounds for a procedural close). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Stacking the notices is not just WP:Canvassing — and disenfranchising those who are not in line with the party line — it is itself an attack on the integrity of the whole WP:AFD process. It is unvarnished Ballot box stuffing. Vitiating the AFDs is one remedy. Sanctioning the perpetrator, who really ought to know better, is another. And both are justified under these circumstances. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Dodger67 Com'on, you should know on which you are commenting. The bundle was already in place before your vote. Störm (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen, I don't know what are you talking about? Maybe you understood it wrong. Störm (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301

CentralTime301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has CIR/BATTLEGROUND issues that I believe need addressed here. He has been slowly edit warring on radio/TV station articles, notably WJCT (TV) and WYCN-LD where he repeatedly restores MOS violations. Cuchullain and Stereorock have made attempts to explain this on article and user talk pages; CentralTime301's replies indicate that he is not listening. (I became involved here, and reverted CentralTime301 on WJCT, because I have Cuchullain's talk page watchlisted.) He uses clearly false edit summaries (see this recent revert where he falsely claims to be "Removing unsourced content") and talk page warnings (see here). His attitude is blatantly battleground - note this section on "editing enemies" that they were recently told to remove from their userpage. In the past four days, he has also filed six bogus requests at RFPP, despite being told to stop by an admin there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Its because I want to make Wikipedia better, and to stop vandalism, please, I'll stop doing those things. The reason for the page protections? I use Twinkle to do that, but I'll stop these protections for now. CentralTime301 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This does need to be dealt with, unfortunately. This is either a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue or an issue of competence. We at least need a strong warning to straighten up and fly right, and action if things don’t improve.—Cúchullain ^t/c 02:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301, can you please explain the warning you left at User talk:RoboHeroTroll? You warned the editor about removing content when they had added content. Why did you do that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen328 - It looks like User:RoboHeroTroll has been banned, possibly as retaliation or WP:Boomerang for the reference to this complaint here (reference diff). If that is this case and CentralTime301 was truly involved in engineering the block of this witness to his misconduct, then this is extremely disturbing and at minimum and abuse of the process. Michepman (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Michepman, RoboHeroTroll was blocked (correctly in my judgment) for a username violation. That does not change the fact that CentralTime301 gave them an incorrect warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301 Why did you add a protection template to an article that is not currently protected? FYI adding the template does not protect the article from being edited. Protection can only be placed on an article by an admin and you have to file a WP:RFPP for that to happen and, as mentioned above, they have to be legitimate requests. This does look like a WP:BATTLEGROUND action on your part.

MarnetteD|Talk 06:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

On the surface, this looks to me like an issue of good faith issues by this user. Helping the user by educating them and giving them the tools and the guidance to help the project seems to be the right solution here... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

+1. The user needs a brief application of the cluebat and maybe some supervision (and a lesson on threading...), but this seems to be misguided good faith. Adoption candidate, maybe? creffett (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2601:C2:4103:3302::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm requesting a rangeblock on [154]. One IP is blocked. User is continuing distribution, adding false info about movies and tv. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block for category vandal

We have a German IP who likes to remove (seemingly valid) categories from biographies - recent previous addresses include 2.247.249.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2.247.249.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2.247.249.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the current IP is 2.247.251.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Users including @BlameRuiner: and @Babymissfortune: (as well as myself) have reverted the disruption, but it's ongoing. Please can an appropriate range block be implemented? GiantSnowman 13:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• 2.247.248.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for 72 hours, it seems to be a somewhat busy range. If that range isn't wide enough to stem the disruption please ping me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2.247.248.0/22 was also the shortest range that I calculated from the IP addresses listed here, though the range of the network is quite wide (2.247.128.0/17). The rangeblock implemented by Ivanvector should definitely put a stop to (if not a significant damper onto) the disruption from this user. Like Ivanvector said above: If the same disruption continues and it looks to be from the same person and with the same starting IP address block, let either him or myself know (or just ping us both) and we'll be happy to take a look and extend the range block in order to put a stop to the matter. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Oshwah: thanks for that - now back editing from a different range, 80.187.101.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Process violations and canvassing at AfD

User:Störm nominated of a series of lists at AfD. The nomination included a serious canvassing violation, pinging all of the delete voters from a previous AfD. Next User:Störm substantially changed nomination after ivoters participated The present AfD is not even close to the one that that ivoters were considering when these multiple AfDs were nominated. In addition I find that the editors who started the articles were not notified. Example: Editor's talk page (started List of geographers in medieval Islamic world) was never notified. I went to Storm's talk page, but they erased my comment and went to the AfD to make a snarky comment. - Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer: Substantially altered nomination during AfD, canvassing at AfD, and not notifying the editors who started the AfD nominated articles/lists. Lightburst (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't actually suggest any sanction to support Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Supporting what exactly? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

What you are supporting? You should write which policy action you want should be taken against me. I did notified previous AfD participants in good faith as it was a continuation of a discussion. Nothing wrong in it. And, you only one participant joined current AfD. So, zero net effect. Störm (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. My proposal is to withdraw the AfdD nominations and it can be renominated without the obvious canvasing and other procedural violations that I have outlined. The nominator Storm should be warned about the AfD behavior and process. Lightburst (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't see anything here that warrants admin intervention. Störm could have done a better job of notifying article creators but your claim that he only pinged the delete voters from a previous AfD is somewhat disingenuous because all voters there voted delete. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, no rule prohibits nominators from modifying the list of articles being considered for deletion and Störm left a timestamped comment highlighting the time at which the list was edited. Any closing admin should be paying enough attention to be able to deal with this. What exactly do you want an admin to do here? Sam Walton (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thoughts - so the canvassing issue isn't clear-cut. Storm didn't just slectively ping delete !voters, which would be a massive issue. He pinged every user in an AfD, all of which happened to !vote delete. Now, this method could still be abused by selectively picking discussions, but it is not clear bad faith. As far as I can tell, your diffs for serious canvassing and pinging are the same - it's not a pattern of behaviour. The change in nomination is poor, as is fundamentally confuses discussion. Depending on the interpretation of the first delete !vote, it's either "legal" but unhelpful or violating the rules on self-withdrawals, as it's not clear whether the first delete !vote is one to delete all the listed articles. Your comment on their talk page was fine but, as always, they're free to remove it. Which was the snarky comment made in response? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinged every editor except the editors who started the articles who obviously may have another opinion. Seems clear that the nominator believes the lists should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear I agree it is messy and confusing and I commented on the AfD. The nominator was snarky in response. Lightburst (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: - I need to note that while I agree it is confusing, I disagree with your judgement that it's a clear violation and bad faith by Storm. Their response is indeed somewhat snarky, but not particularly problematic. Nosebagbear (talk)

• @Lightburst: - the creators and the participants of the related AfD are distinct groups - he isn't required to balance one legitimate group with another. Notifying article creators isn't required, though Twinkle does it for the primary listed (so he did do it for top of list but not the others). If they are actually taken as a group it could be considered to a breach of the non-partisan requirement, though as we'd be fine with them individually contacted that would be pushing it. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:AFDLIST It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. For your convenience, you may use subst:Adw It is our practice - to notify major contributors by long standing consensus. Lightburst (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's considered civil (and just helpful) to do so, it is not required. As evidence for that viewpoint I'd note that it's very rare for anyone to notify the major, non-creator, contributors of articles submitted to AfD, and we don't suggest tagging every nominator for their failure. I believe that Storm's (in)actions do not reach a level of needing formal warning and rebuke. As to the AfD, I'm open to other non-involved parties thoughts as to what, if any, action should be taken. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I think members of the Article Rescue Squadron should be careful about accusing other editors of canvassing given that they run a forum dedicated to canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A stunning comment from an administrator. I have taken note of your animosity and prejudice. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed solution - It seems like the core issue is that [[User:Storm[ failed to notify the creator of the articles that he nominated for deletion. Instead of closing those discussions en masse, a better solution might be to reach out to each of the creators and let them know about the discussion so that they can participate if they choose to do so. I don't think there's any need to close those discussions especially when the canvassing issue isn't a clear-cut bad faith attempt to game consensus. Michepman (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with NRP here, although I also believe ARS does good work when members involved actually work on the article and do not simply go on with "passes GNG"-type arguments. I've seen both happen, I see that sort of canvassing as a double-edged sword imho. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK:. I did that last night. Posted the AfD template notice on talk pages of the many list creators. Lightburst (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

TNT the current AFD and start over by nominating pages individually. The current "collection" of list pages in this AFD, to put it kindly, incoherent at best. My !vote addresses only the list page mentioned in the title/heading of the nomination, not the rest of the pages mentioned later, which seems to have changed since the AFD started (that alone is grounds for a procedural close). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Stacking the notices is not just WP:Canvassing — and disenfranchising those who are not in line with the party line — it is itself an attack on the integrity of the whole WP:AFD process. It is unvarnished Ballot box stuffing. Vitiating the AFDs is one remedy. Sanctioning the perpetrator, who really ought to know better, is another. And both are justified under these circumstances. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Dodger67 Com'on, you should know on which you are commenting. The bundle was already in place before your vote. Störm (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:7&6=thirteen, I don't know what are you talking about? Maybe you understood it wrong. Störm (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301

CentralTime301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has CIR/BATTLEGROUND issues that I believe need addressed here. He has been slowly edit warring on radio/TV station articles, notably WJCT (TV) and WYCN-LD where he repeatedly restores MOS violations. Cuchullain and Stereorock have made attempts to explain this on article and user talk pages; CentralTime301's replies indicate that he is not listening. (I became involved here, and reverted CentralTime301 on WJCT, because I have Cuchullain's talk page watchlisted.) He uses clearly false edit summaries (see this recent revert where he falsely claims to be "Removing unsourced content") and talk page warnings (see here). His attitude is blatantly battleground - note this section on "editing enemies" that they were recently told to remove from their userpage. In the past four days, he has also filed six bogus requests at RFPP, despite being told to stop by an admin there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Its because I want to make Wikipedia better, and to stop vandalism, please, I'll stop doing those things. The reason for the page protections? I use Twinkle to do that, but I'll stop these protections for now. CentralTime301 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This does need to be dealt with, unfortunately. This is either a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue or an issue of competence. We at least need a strong warning to straighten up and fly right, and action if things don’t improve.—Cúchullain ^t/c 02:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301, can you please explain the warning you left at User talk:RoboHeroTroll? You warned the editor about removing content when they had added content. Why did you do that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen328 - It looks like User:RoboHeroTroll has been banned, possibly as retaliation or WP:Boomerang for the reference to this complaint here (reference diff). If that is this case and CentralTime301 was truly involved in engineering the block of this witness to his misconduct, then this is extremely disturbing and at minimum and abuse of the process. Michepman (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Michepman, RoboHeroTroll was blocked (correctly in my judgment) for a username violation. That does not change the fact that CentralTime301 gave them an incorrect warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

CentralTime301 Why did you add a protection template to an article that is not currently protected? FYI adding the template does not protect the article from being edited. Protection can only be placed on an article by an admin and you have to file a WP:RFPP for that to happen and, as mentioned above, they have to be legitimate requests. This does look like a WP:BATTLEGROUND action on your part.

MarnetteD|Talk 06:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

On the surface, this looks to me like an issue of good faith issues by this user. Helping the user by educating them and giving them the tools and the guidance to help the project seems to be the right solution here... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

+1. The user needs a brief application of the cluebat and maybe some supervision (and a lesson on threading...), but this seems to be misguided good faith. Adoption candidate, maybe? creffett (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please block this open proxy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This open proxy IP 182.73.56.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been pending at AIV and Meta:Steward requests/Global but in the meantime is continuing to cause disruption - please block asap. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been completed. 194.176.192.164 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Yanagi Nakamura

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Preeeeety sure User:Yanagi Nakamura isn't here to be helpful in any way, shape or form. This particular edit fairly well explains what they are about, wishing death and destruction on User:Nblund ("One day my friend what happened to Alec is going to happen to you but unlike alec i won't feel sorry for you instead ill be laughing as your life falls apart at the seams") and in the same edit violating BLP about Zoe Quinn. --Jorm (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok answer me this how is saying none of the sources <redacted> either JORN?! I didnt wish death and destruction upon anyone by the way pal i said that because thats the kind of climate we are in now of days. Or do you not pay attention to the world outside of wiki?Yanagi Nakamura (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Until you can find a reliable source that ties Alec's suicide to Zoe, you cannot go around saying they caused his death.--Jorm (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Yanagi Nakamura blocked indef. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure where this should go, Godinogn2 states their password on their user page, and claims to be a role account, seems to be inviting others to share the account. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked purely as a compromised/shared account for now. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Good grief. Bogus AfD nomination and page blankings "at the request of the subject". WHoever, whatever, indef for so many reasons.-- Deepfriedokra 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting help after two days

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A WP:SOCK investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ 2605:6000:6406:5A00:E4F5:96C7:A364:B4E0 is two days old, and some of the apparent socks have continued editing. I'm hoping an admin can go there and take a look. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• The account is not the IPs. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sitush and MJL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sitush has followed MJL to Scots Wikipedia, a Wiki Sitush had never edited at previously, to make a critical comment about MJL, in English. This may constitute WP:HOUNDING. Here's the diff.

Some additional detail:

• Sitush seems to have become fixated on MJL ever since MJL filed an Arbcom case case against Eric Corbett: [155], [156], [157] [158], [159], [160], [161].

• Sitush found out about MJL's Scots activity because of a post on MJL's talk page, a page I also follow: [162].

• Sitush has brushed off criticism/attempts to open a dialogue: [163], [164]).

An interaction ban may be beneficial for both parties. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think this constitutes hounding given (1) Sitush was directed to scowiki activity by a post at MJL's own user talk, and (2) it concerns a scowiki RfA, rather than any old contributions at scowiki; RfAs on any project are a matter of high scrutiny. Unless there's some indication that Sitush is engaged in some sort of untoward behavior or misconduct indicative of hounding, such as following an unreasonable number of low-priority contribs here or elsewhere in pursuit of some vendetta, then I don't think this thread is particularly helpful. Especially in light of the ongoing drama concerning Eric Corbett. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)It wouldn't hurt for Sitush to ask himself if MJL is really the appropriate target for his pique about the Eric Corbett situation, but we're very far from requiring a sanction here. It wasn't any old edit to Scots wiki; it was a request for adminship, where interactions elsewhere are quite relevant. And in case you were proposing a two-way interaction ban; MJL's problem isn't with Sitush; rather, it's that they need to reduce their participation on the drama boards. This is a point that has been made, rather forcefully, on their talk page by a number of users; so nothing further is required there, either. Let's not inflame this any more than necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• I think a no-fault two way IBAN might actually be beneficial in this instance. From a few off-wiki conversations that I have had with MJL, it's pretty clear to me that they want to edit constructively, but feel like them getting into dramafests is hampering that (that's at least my impression of the issue). From what I could gather on Sitush's talk page comments, it's pretty apparent that they're not too keen to interact with MJL either, and since it seems that they haven't been able to keep it civil so far, it might be well worth it for them to simply avoid each other. Should there not be a formal IBAN enacted, I'd still strongly urge both Sitush and MJL to heed my advice and just avoid interacting with each other. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I guess it's only fair to mention that my obvious preference is for a one-way IBAN (since I don't recall ever treating him with disrespect), but by a quick look at the above I doubt that's likely to gain consensus.
  I do have to point out though, Mendaliv, Sitush was not (and hopefully has never been) directed to my scowiki RFA. StudiesWorld was cautious enough not to leave a direct link, so the only way Sitush was able to find it was on his own accord.
  Also, this shouldn't need to be explained, but if Sitush's only plans for contributing to scowiki are that RFA comment; then that's clearly disruptive to local processes and threatens community self-governance. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  MJL, there's a link to your RfA over Scots, merely three sections up and that was posted by you. Sitush also wrote over the thread:-Ah, it is - seen your post above. ∯WBG^converse 05:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Winged Blades of Godric: It's not been a good day. Sorry –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I’ll just be clear though, even if that link hadn’t existed, I’d not consider this hounding. I articulated what I think is a good standard above, though it might do with some unpacking and refinement: ... some sort of untoward behavior or misconduct indicative of hounding, such as following an unreasonable number of low-priority contribs here or elsewhere in pursuit of some vendetta... I really think hounding needs to comprise a pattern of misconduct or unwarranted/highly invasive “following” into topic areas and pages where the only reasonable link is the person being followed. So for me, the scowiki RfA plus the disputes stemming purely from a Eric Corbett don’t make a pattern. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Mendaliv: This is the correct assessment on hounding. However, hounding has never been my core issue. It's that with every time Sitush refers to me, I feel increasingly worthless as an editor.
  You may recall our short exchange on WT:ACN a few months back. You told me then I shouldn't be so hard on myself. Look around in this thread, and you'll see the answer. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Yes, we all make mistakes. You, however, make a ridiculous number of them, including at least one in this very thread which resulted in you returning to strike after WBG explained. And, for the record, the reason I even went to your page and saw that in passing was because I know that Ceoil had offered to mentor you and I was hoping to see that something had come of that offer. Which it hadn't, seemingly because you pissed them off in some way or another, too. No-one is entirely "worthless" but there are degrees of worthiness and, as I said to you some weeks ago, you have been spending far too much time outside article space and thus falling into numerous "traps" and butting heads with people far more experienced in the policy/guideline stuff than yourself. You need to build up to that sort of thing, which is something that, again, other people have told you. - Sitush (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  It really isn't Sitush's fault for how I feel. I'm just particularly sensitive to criticism that I've let down this project in some way. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Luckilly, you haven't been here long enough to let the project down. The skill set now required is not to do so in the future. ——SerialNumber54129 08:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• For people who claim that they want to avoid drama - they certainly seem to find it easily enough. If the Scotish RfA process is anything like ours, I would think they would appreciate any insight into someone requesting Administrator with less than 400 edits. From what I can decipher, the Scotish wiki is small, and in need of Admins. Still, I think it MORE important to select "good" admins, and I think they should decide that for themselves. I'm not sure how a comment by Sitush is disruptive to local processes and threatens community self-governance. (and I'm not asking for an explanation). All things considered, I don't think any action should be taken at this point, and I personally hope that it's closed fairly quickly. We have had more than enough drama throughout our en-WP project the past couple months to last us through the rest of this year IMO. I think it's time to stand down and try to heal our wounds. — Ched (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

They would no doubt argue that doing so protects a small wiki from unknown forces. Be mindful. ——SerialNumber54129 05:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Echo Vanamonde-93. ∯WBG^converse 05:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• This report is total nonsense. It is very reasonable for Sitush to post an accurate statement when someone known to be out of their depth (see Vanamonde's post above) tries for adminship at a small wiki. It is not hounding. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• MJl is an incompetent drama-monger but it is wrong to suggest that I am following them around everywhere. We've crossed paths occasionally and, yes, some of that has related to Eric Corbett stuff, but I am not hounding them (or whatever) because of the EC situation. Numerous people prior to me had suggested on MJL's own talk page that they need to back off the drama boards etc. And their efforts at Talk:Cotswold Olimpick Games are practically trolling in their IDHT-ishness. Wandering Wanda is also no fan of either me or EC. Does anyone really think I give a flying fuck about this place after what has gone on over the last few months re: Fram, Ritchie, T&S, Eric etc? I don't. So sue me. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In case people were wondering... I don't think Sitush follows me to the point of hounding. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty clear as a slamdunk end to discussion - unless 2 users have reached proper battleground behaviour, I generally don't feel the Community should be making (rather than suggesting) they stop interacting with each other. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP user is confusingly NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I'm not even sure what this user is up to, but it doesn't seem to be anything related to improving the encyclopedia. See [165], [166], [167]. The first diff contains the statement that "I've been editing this, Men's Rights Movement and other articles on and off for a while to make men and white people look bad and to promote the idea that they're not human so they're easier to exterminate. The intersectional solution to racism and sexism."

The user has left two messages on my talk page ([168], [169]) which included the statement "All this user seeks to do, is make wikipedia more inclusive. By any means necessary."

I can barely parse this user's language, but it doesn't seem to be constructive or in good faith. Requesting a block on the IP user. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heliosgaming WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Heliosgaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Editing only Ramkrishna Mahato Government Engineering College, they repeatedly violate the same MOS guidelines, and even after seven warnings they repeated the same edits. They refuse to communicate and I am convinced they are Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. At the very least please give them a stern warning, or block them if you seem fit. --Muhandes (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Awardmaniac violating topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have recently found that Awardmaniac has violated a topic ban imposed on them this past March on Michael Jackson-related articles per consensus here. In the last 24 hours, they've edited The Jackson 5 discography (which Michael was a member of) following three consecutive changes to his main page. I feel this user should be blocked for blatantly disregarding the restrictions without even trying to appeal the ban first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Awardmaniac's violations of the topic ban seem to date back to July. [170] Since then, as far as I can see, every one of their edits has violated the topic ban. 86.134.75.60 (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking further into Special:Contributions/Awardmaniac, the earliest violation after being warned was even earlier, taking place this past April on father Joe's article. It's debatable whether editing a page for his sister Janet in May also counts as a violation. Either way, it does seem that everything after that July edit you linked went against the ban. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The wording of the tban was "broadly construed", I think editing articles for any member of the Jackson family would be under consideration. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This was a pretty clear topic ban violation, or even series of topic ban violations. I blocked for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

48 hours is short, considering how blatant these violations are. But I endorse the block. Thanks, Ymblanter. --Yamla (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Yamla. Next block should probably be indefinite if this keeps up. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I too endorse a lengthy block if it persists. Buffs (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awardmaniac because of an apparent case of block-evading sockpuppetry. If confirmed, I plan to block indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry was confirmed and the block was extended indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date-changing vandal back again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we re-block the range Special:Contributions/2A00:23C6:7F97:8100:0:0:0:0/64? This is a date-changing vandal targeting primarily music articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 23:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken Cite News Templates all Over Wikipedia

I apologize in advance if this is not the correct noticeboard to report this, but someone has changed the Cite News templates and article citations are broken in articles all over Wikipedia.

These articles are examples to name a few. Just scroll down to the Citation sections and look over the breakage:

• 2019 El Paso shooting
• Tri-tip
• Brexit

and so on and so on ...

Every article on wikipedia seems affected (millions). Thanks in advance for reviewing this issue. I apologize if this is not the correct forum to bring this issue up. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: Known issue, it's under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_there_a_semi-automated_tool_that_could_fix_these_annoying_"Cite_Web"_errors?. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It looks like the issue is nearing resolution.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Atlético Madrid

Can an admin help sort out the edit war going on, on the article please. Govvy (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

MYS77 has been edit-warring with 173.130.240.225 both have gone way pass WP:3RR. Govvy (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been backed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#B-team loans, and provided a more ellaborative explanation at User talk:173.130.240.225. I do reckon that I've breached WP:3RR (per said at User talk:Mattythewhite), but I don't get why I'm being reported since I'm acting according to the guidelines and so on. @Govvy:, what's your personal opinion over the subject? MYS77 ^✉ 20:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have rolled the article back how it stood before MYS77 edited it today. As my edit summary said, both editors are at peril of a 3RR block if they revert again. However, I welcome them to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@MYS77: Has far as I am concerned you have stepped way over the line and my opinion is against yours anyway. Govvy (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: They're both over the line, IMHO. However, if they both pull back and discuss, then we have a properly functioning encyclopedia, and everybody can keep editing. If there is any further edit warring (or any other inappropriate behaviour), then necessary sanctions will be applied. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, C.Fred, hopefully, they can stop edit-warring, I really don't think I could get them to stop myself! I don't know why MYS77 is going on about consensus know, because there isn't any consensus for what he is doing, other editors have different opinions, but this was more about the behaviour which I wanted to stop. Govvy (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've been taking care of Spanish football for a little while now, standardizing the pages and providing a better environment so everybody can understand it more easily. I've reached consensus before about the loan players, don't know why we should be reaching a consensus again, it seems tiring and involutive. The youth team players who appear in the main squad are those who participated in a first team match, and this approach is used on a lot of Spanish articles, not only by me but by a lot of other users. MYS77 ^✉ 21:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Bot-like IP edits

Over the past few weeks, someone using the IP address 74.14.10.125 has been steadily making non-productive, seemingly scripted edits: changing infobox whitespace (examples: [171][172][173]) and removing/altering punctuation indiscriminately (examples: [174][175][176][177]). Would it be possible (or appropriate) for an administrator to rollback his or her edits en masse? gnu57 02:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a problem with their edits, other than the fact that they seem to be automated? ST47 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they're doing indiscriminate/idiosyncratic removals of quotation marks, emdashes, ellipses, parentheses, and italicisation. gnu57 02:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit turned the items in the "motto" field in the infobox from Latin to English and left a red link template. They are not looking at the aftereffects of their edits to see if there are any problems with what they have done. I'm pretty sure there has been at least one other thread about this kind of editing on one of the noticeboards recently but I can't remember where or when at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, per WP:MEATBOT, (to summarize) we're expected to pay attention to our edits and not allow speed or quantity to sacrifice quality. In dispute resolution, it's irrelevant whether the edits in question were performed by a bot, a human assisted by automation or a script, or a human without any such assistance. Regardless, the disruptive editing must stop, or the user can be blocked. Merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive - not unless repeated issues are reported and continue, especially during that kind of editing. If this IP user appears to be editing in a fast or "bot-like" fashion or speed, and their edits are causing repeated issues or errors, they can be blocked if they continue despite repeated attempts to ask them to resolve those issues or stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the user is a bot, how do we reach out to them to get them to stop? Is the bot creator required/expected to monitor the bot's talk page? Michepman (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit rate on this is so slow that I don't think it's really a "bot" problem in the traditional sense (e.g. with operator monitoring, etc) - even if it were a logged out bot, the operator wouldn't be expected to monitor the user talk:ip_address page - if you think this is actually a logged out bot, which bot do you think it is? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually unclear if it is a bot; I was just going off of the discussion above about automated editing. Michepman (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not a bot... their edits are indicative of someone who may be going a bit too fast and isn't paying attention to their edits and what they're doing (I haven't looked myself; I was simply helping this discussion by pointing to policy). We'd reach out to them on their user talk page like we would any other editor who we'd need to talk to. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing the whitespace in template parameters is a known side-effect of editors using the Wikipedia:VisualEditor, people. See phabricator:T179259 and discussions passim. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, well there you go. :-) Thank you, Uncle G, for adding this information to the discussion. I admit that I wasn't aware of this "side-effect" or issue myself; this is good to know for future reference. Looking at the diffs listed here, this would explain most of the edits in concern (other than some of the punctuation alterations maybe). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah As far as I can tell I don't think it explains the changing Latin to English and leaving a red template in the example I linked to above. MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: They are continuing to add/remove punctuation incorrectly, and there has been no communication. There are now about 30 articles, to which they have made the last edit, which are likely to need at least partial reversion. A block is desirable at this point. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I just reverted this IP's improper addition of apostrophes to decades (e.g. "1950s" to "1950's"). If it isn't intentional disruption, it's incompetence, and the lack of response leaves a block as the only remaining option. --Sable232 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Issued level-4 warning and reported to AIV. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The disruptive editing re-started almost immediately upon expiration of the block: [178] --Sable232 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Now blocked for a month, and today's contribs rolled back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion these edits are automated. Removing pairs of quotation marks, removing (not replacing) emdashes, adding spaces around = symbols in template parameters, removing periods from initialisms, all rapidly and indiscriminately, and without responding to discussion. This is a bot, and other than blocking the IP whenever it's active I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Bill Josephs and Palestine

Bill Josephs (talk · contribs) has, on a number of occasions, changed State of Palestine to Territory of Palestine, specifically on LGBT rights in the State of Palestine. There are currently discretionary sanctions on articles relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict, and he seems intent on making this article fall under the "broadly construed" umbrella imo. He's been warned several times, including once of the sanctions. - Frood (talk!) 05:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the edits made to LGBT rights in the State of Palestine by Bill Josephs have been disruptive, repeated, consistent, and have continued to occur despite numerous messages, warnings, and requests for him to stop. It's also clear that this disruption is unlikely to stop unless administrative actions are taken in order to intervene and set expectations. Due to the ongoing disruption reported here and what I've observed, I've imposed the use of discretionary sanctions and have topic banned the user from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict for three months. This will give Bill Josephs the opportunity to contribute positively elsewhere on Wikipedia, while imposing fair and necessary sanctions and actions to maintain an acceptable and collaborative editing environment without outright blocking the user. I'm hoping that this will put an end to the disruption and help Bill Josephs to grow and learn, and hopefully return after they've gained sufficient experience in order to appropriately contribute to this topic area. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Bill Josephs immediately violated your topic ban and I have blocked him for two weeks after a complaint at WP:AE. Bishonen | talk 10:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen - Perfect, thank you for handling that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

SPA and WP:NOTHERE for 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests related article

• 65.60.163.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• XXn00b21Xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2019 Yuen Long attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• POV pushing edit alone (adding suspect and personal opinion etc) from the ip:
  • Special:Diff/907296674
  • Special:Diff/907456413
  • Special:Diff/908500836
  • Special:Diff/908826462
  • Special:Diff/909571253
  • Special:Diff/910456136
• SPA edits by XXn00b21Xx
  • Special:Diff/907348869

Sorry to raise the issue here. I tried to AGF to explain to the ip that wikipedia is a tertiary source , but it seem the ip fails to understand WP:OR, WP:V and may be synthesis of source for over 2 months.

For example, see his edit in 2019 Yuen Long attack and Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack, they (he/she) keep trying to act as a meatsock to adding triad wording into the infobox, which is an accusation to the suspect (See Special:Diff/908826462), which clearly WP:BLP related issue and violation. Instead of get to the point, they tried to justify themselves by saying This is a clear example of coordinated political violence, as reported [sic] by numerous reputable media outlets, which clearly in the reliable sources are reporting accusations and opinions of academician and politician, which totally not WP:DUE to include in infobox.

While in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, they insist there is a need to add Junius Ho into the infobox, with the following reason in talk: Okay, bottom line is that Junius Ho is a relatively powerful and influential public political figure, holding political office, and a staunch supporter of certain pro-establishment positions. He is very outspoken, makes frequent inflammatory statements which receive media attention and circulate widely, and folks of various positions also strongly react to and are encouraged by his perspectives., which clearly his own analysis of source and making their own conclusion that Junius Ho is the leader that merit to add to infobox. As well as refuse to provide the real citation to explicitly state "Junius Ho is a leader of pro-government/pro-extradition bill politician " or other similar wording. To be fair, the ip is just defending that POV, but not the initial editor who add it to the infobox. User:Hoising, an active editor in zh-wiki (and may be en-wiki) did it instead. (Special:Diff/907378181)

There are other POV pushing attempt from the ip for the article, also without any real citation to justify , such as Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Adding section for Predominant Slogans, which clearly the thread starter and the ip failed to grasp the idea of WP:V. Such as the ip replied Reporting about the culture of an historical event is not propaganda, it is documenting history!, but this response without really responding how many external source are there to justify the inclusion of other minor slogans of the rally/protest/demonstration.

So, base on the edit record, is it due to warrant a topic ban or just temp block for the ip?

Lastly, the registered account made similar edit. Just file as may be other new user have the same POV, or logout edit account. But the account is stale. Matthew hk (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• There are 5 citations, including quality newspapers" for the "Spiritual Leader"and the statement above is invalid.hoising (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It never a WP:DUE condition when only tabloid newspaper call Ho as "Spiritual Leader", "Godfather" or some sort. Those citation in Chinese, some of them does not even mean that, most of them merely implied that Ho had a connection to the suspected triad gang in 2019 Yuen Long attack. It certainly a POV pushing to put him in infobox. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

For the so-called citation as a leader of triad, i had move to Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests# Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict under sub-section "Discussion" for anyone interested to read it and make conclusion it is supporting the statement/claim or not . Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, just to point out, at that time the Chinese wikipedia page on the topic included similar mentions of the triad. So why not POV pushing considered there too? (For reference, see brief discussion here: User_talk:65.60.163.223#August_2019) Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Members above said that South China Morning Post is a tabloid. I feel a deep regret. The exact word on the papers is 'Hero'. Also, if you believe 'Hero of Triads' is a proper title, you can use it. Thanks. hoising (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hoising: You are literally shown you are POV pushing to synthesises the source to call Ho as as "spiritual leader of triad gang" when Ho was just made a serious political scandal of contacting triad in the mid of the attack. Matthew hk (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, feel free to cite the exact SCMP article that the journalist called Ho is a "hero of triad" instead of reporting Ho's opinion on the white mob action. Matthew hk (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that difference between Triads' Hero and Hero of Triads is a grammar issue, and is not about the fact.- hoising (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your confirmation that SCMP had described Mr Ho as Triads' Hero. - hoising (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For admin, here is how he reflecting other people's comment and refuse to give out his real citation instead of his synthesises . Matthew hk (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I quoted from the SCMP, but some members prefer coping exact wording. - hoising (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Your source is not a SCMP source. (Special:Diff/907378144). And it is synthesises or even original research to conclude Ho as a leader, when that source only stated [Ho] giving them a thumbs-up, and saying “thanks for your hard work!” Matthew hk (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It is because you selected one of my edits only. You can find more citations after the 907378144. --hoising (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You can just defence yourself by digging up your exact SCMP citation and make direct quote to prove you are not synthesising source. Instead of bluffing you have one. Matthew hk (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted for the non-Chinese speakers in the room that "hero" has somewhat different connotations in Chinese than it does in English. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

1) Okay, hello everyone. So, in regards to the 2019 Yuen Long attack article ... edits were made to the infobox and reverted and then we had a very thorough conversation on the talk page, here:

Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack § Infobox and suspects

I had never tried to repeatedly over time edit the infobox or engage in an edit war ... we had a long discussion about the particulars, and I now understand the rules about how sensitive the infobox content is due to living persons and their reputations being involved. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

2) In regards to a proposal for adding information about some of the protest slogans: I was not the one who first proposed this, but only agreed with it (as have a few others as well). We currently have a section on the Adapted songs ... so it's not a far stretch to also have information about some of the slogans, especially given some media have reported on this topic. There was a "Popular culture" section on the article but it was deleted, so I proposed that this info go to a new main article about the art and music and creative aspects of the protests, similar to the page about Art of the Umbrella Movement ... my proposal for this was recently "archived" on the talk page. Anyhow, few others were interested in starting such a page and so it never happened, as I was not going to push that forward on my own. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

3) Okay, lastly, in regards to some of the edit diffs linked above: Yes, I had updated the title of a section in the article from "2019 Yuen Long violence" to "Yuen Long pro-Beijing attacks" ... this did not seem contentious at the time. The original sub-section title seemed vague and lacking specificity ... like, "who was harmed? who was doing the harm?" etc. So I thought it should be more clear and understandable to the reader, not to mention actually accurate based on media reports of suspected pro-Beijing organized crime elements that were allegedly involved. 65.60.163.223 (talk)

Regarding this did not seem contentious at the time — oh? I actually seem to recall you edit warring against multiple editors to retain that change of yours. El_C 07:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no discussion on the specific topic and no consensus reached at that time ... 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

4) And finally: the editor who started this thread mentioned a handful of edits (and talk page conversations) that they disagreed with, but what about all of the many, many, many, productive and constructive edits that I have been making over the course of several months? I am not here to vandalise or engage in edit wars etc. etc. ... sure, I am interested in the topic and enjoy contributing, but that's about it and that's where it stands from my perspective. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.60.163.223: For "terrorist attack" in case you don't know at that time, 2019 Yuen Long attack was removed from List of terrorist incidents in July 2019 and a bold move backed by Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack#"Terrorist Attack"? already taken. The thread did not discuss the wording in lede or infobox, but by common sense it had a consensus it is not due to use the "terrorist attack" wording anywhere but "Reaction" section. Matthew hk (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is, i keep telling wikipedia content on article namespace required to be based on secondary source. We can have a brief opinion on those source are reliable or able to use or not (so WP:RSN existed), but not synthesise them as well as pure personal opinion that did not backed by another citation at all. Matthew hk (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. : ) I am still trying to wrap my mind around some of the nuances and complexities of Wikipedian culture. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly anything to do with Hong Kong needs additional admin oversight at the moment. There are... problems... all over there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Very much in agreement about that. : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, instead of stick to the citation and may be registered an account and built reputation, it is not constructive to reply Actually, we SPA are obviously CIA!! ; ) in Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict. Matthew hk (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That was a small joke to help lighten the mood! Please make special note of the winking and smiling emoticon that I had originally included in that brief remark. Cheers! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, don't worry! I won't be able to edit for much longer because the summer break is over! No more free time starting very very soon!

Keep up the great work everyone!! Adieu mes amis! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• A little late to the party I should note that while it's evident that 65.60.163.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a POV - I don't believe they're here to be a POV pusher per say. Their recent participation on article talk has shown a willingness to learn and attempts to understand both Wikipedia's culture and some of the historical context surrounding current events in Hong Kong that they were evidently unaware of. As such, I'd be inclined, notwithstanding their suggestion they may soon be suffering a bout of WP:ANIFLU to extend them some WP:ROPE at this juncture. I am less inclined to extend that courtesy to Hoising whose actions have been somewhat more problematic WRT POV pushing. In particular, it concerns me the extent to which they've undertaken exploiting the slight connotational differences between 英雄 and "hero" to try and shift POV about Junius Ho, especially considering the risks to WP:BLPCRIME that affiliating a politician who has not faced charges to a criminal network represents. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Eta: I just realized I have commented here before. But, after some significant involvement in these pages, the comment immediately above does represent my opinion at this juncture. An additional note: with regard to media sources on China affairs, SCMP is kind of the opposite of a tabloid. It has historically shown neither the explicit pro-Beijing bias of publications like the People's Daily nor the explicit anti-Beijing bias of Ming Pao or the BBC. As such, I would generally treat SCMP as being a reliable source, my well-known aversion to newsmedia sourcing notwithstanding. However, as with any media source, it's important that when we express the editorial opinion of a writer in SCMP, we attribute that opinion to the author, noting their outlet, and ensure that it adheres to WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

What i mean was, there are tabloid news reporting in Chinese/Cantonese that accusing Ho as the mastermind of the incident, which such conspiracy theory cannot be added to the wikipedia as serious WP:BLP violation. While, SCMP, it is not my opinion but someone else that they had changed their political spectrum just like the take over of Sing Tao many years ago. But even SCMP, it did not have so called news article to say Ho is the "spiritual leader", hero or other wording, but reporting the accusation and fact that Ho had met the white mob suspects on that attack. As well as just like many pro-government politicians , voiced his opinions on protesters/so called rioters. Matthew hk (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• And the articles had escalated to SPA farms. Ltyl, another SPA, started the article Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and then start edit warring with other. See Special:Diff/913559919. I endorsed with 65.60.163.223's edit Special:Diff/913614187, as it is a wide spread accusation that documented in the news report. Matthew hk (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

For context of Ltyl as SPA of another fraction, see also the Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests/Archive 5#Sources for the alleged violence/vandalism/abuses by protesters or their sympathisers and then the act of WP:POVFORK to create Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests which was bold move and then nominated for Afd. See the wall of text at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Matthew hk (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me just point out that the WP:POVFORK charge is just a POV. No verdict in yet. Ltyl (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I lost track of all the changes. You have produced only two changes in your evidence. What I see is: I wrote the article; somebody changed it; I reverted it. That's all. That's hardly edit warring. If you think I'm missing something, please produce more evidence. What you have done at the moment is more like harassment, using nuisance litigation to stop others to make legitimate contributions Ltyl (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to explain as a new user, all of your contributions are related to 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests? Matthew hk (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't need to explain myself to you really... Are you saying SPAs are not allowed on WP? It suffices to say, I'm here to improve the articles, and I believe I have shown good faith in the discussions to reach consensus. You can show me evidence to prove the otherwise. Ltyl (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Reputation and controversies of Hong Kong Police
• List of early 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of July 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of August 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of September 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
  • This is getting to be a bit excessive. GMG^talk 16:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I admitted the article size of the original article had some problem , but after the split it may be cause even more problems. Matthew hk (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't help that anytime the a newspaper reports two or more people standing around in black tee-shirts, it is deemed due and must go in. These articles need paring back, but they need paring back by someone willing to be neutral and not just decide that anything that makes their camp look bad is undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty noticeable the violent acts of some of the protesters are absent in the article, but i am not sure the accusation on the police are still undue. But now the article had suffered from a very serious POVFork from both side of the protest. I also agree that some of the article need to be trimmed, and may be at least down to 10 article for this article series. Now in the cat there are 15 articles. Matthew hk (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:65.60.188.94 "Removing see also section"

Is there some way to roll-back all edits by this user and stop them from making more? -- GreenC 02:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted and asked them to stop. – bradv🍁 02:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Bradv -- GreenC 04:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Page blanking/possible legal threat at Aero L-39NG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Carramba66 (talk · contribs) has been trying to insert a number of photos of questionable copyright status into the article Aero L-39NG (at least one of which has been deleted from Commons as a copyvio). After the additions (by Carramba66 and an IP) have been reverted several times and the article semi protected, Carramba66 blanked the page with the comment "MilborneOne I got the copyright directly from the company (owner). I moved this whole thing to the Aero lawyers. They will contact you." I've reverted the blanking, but as the message could be considered a legal threat, I've raised the issue here.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a very direct note on their page asking them to clarify what they mean. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's nothing like a NLT threat, it's just a confused uploader who doesn't know how to work MediaWiki. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aero vodochody l-39ng.jpg It's a batch deletion, nothing more. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Just want to point out the strangeness of an account registered on 09:00, 11 December 2007, editing only once on 13:02, 11 August 2016 before the series of edits in the past month... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

They have more older history on cswiki. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• The way I interpret this is as "the lawyers will contact you to clarify the copyright status", not as a legal threat against you. The message doesn't claim that you violated a law. Per WP:AGF, I suggest we move on. --MrClog (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  That is also my first impression. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  Assuming that this is what the editor meant, and assuming that they clarify this, that just leaves the page blanking [179]. If they are an experienced editor on cswiki, then this needs some explanation.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say they are an experienced editor on cswiki. They only have 74 edits over there, over 9 years, and most of those are in bookspace, just making lists of articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• I too am not seeing a legal threat here. With page blanking, talk to them. Unless something else happens, nothing else to see/do here... and we all move along... Buffs (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotion-only account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have tried taking a no-templates, educational approach with User talk:Airmax617 and look where it's gotten me "Let's get to actionable terms: what do we need to do to get the Laally Bridge concept introduced in the at-breast supplementation section of Wikipedia?" I am out of patience with this guy. Does anyone want to take over? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential shared account (they keep referring to themselves in the plural), blatant (potentially paid) COI (per their talk page, My wife...is the inventor of the Bridge, Bridge being the product this account is pushing), promo-only account, there's a lot of potential block reasons here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Please remember we are not a medical device and don't make medical claims -- latching a baby is not a medical claim and helping moms keep the baby at the breast is also not a medical claim." Actually, "yes" on both counts. Gandydancer (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

By we -- it's my wife (Kate) and I. We're entrepreneurs trying to help parents succeed at breastfeeding. We are behind Laally and we make the product, the Bridge. We are not hiding any of that information. We're not pushing a product, we're engaging in a discussion to try to get the public educated about at-breast supplementation to resolve BF issues using different types of products. The current wiki article on the concept is not complete.

On a similar page on pumping, there are pictures of pumps and company names. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_pump. Clayoquot is arguing that we can't be on these pages because of "potential harm" (which is a personal belief) and because we are not in "reputable sources" (which we think we are).

We'd be happy to have a live discussion on this with any moderator or admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airmax617 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Airmax617: If you're trying to get your product (note the emphasis) added to articles, then even if you call it education, it's promotion. This is exactly why we have the guidelines we do about conflicts of interest and why it is a bad idea for you to try to add your own product anywhere on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that we shouldn't be self promoting -- and I agree. That's why our original edit talked about multiple devices in the space and the options that exist for parents. We're trying to get the current article expanded to include everything about supplementary nursing systems, aka lactation aid, aka at-breast supplementation devices.

Current issues with the entry: 1. "supplemental nursing system (SNS)" is a trademarked term and a device made by Medela (we told Clayoquoat about this but nothing was done) 2. "lactation aid, is a device that consists of a container and a capillary tube" -- this only applies for some device and not all devices on the market, since our lactation aid (a.k.a. at-breast supplementation device) utilized a silicone cover, a channel and container (syringe) 3. "Mothers usually obtain SNS supplies from a lactation consultant." -- this is untrue as the Medela SNS, Lact-Aid and Laally Bridge are all sold D2C and at stores 4. There are 4 options for moms to do at-breast supplementation: a. create their own with or without a lactation consulting using tubes and a container; b. buy a Medela SNS; c. buy a Lact-Aid; d. buy a Laally Bridge. This is critical information for all moms -- yes it involves our product but we're trying to get moms the best information possible on the entire landscape. As mentioned earlier we'd be happy if our technology/device was discussed without the name. As long as parents have the right education on the concepts and options available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airmax617 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Airmax617: First and foremost, please see WP:Verify: "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." You added content for which you provided no sources at all. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Airmax617: The only source cited inline in the article uses "supplemental nursing system" in the generic. Accordingly, I don't see any need for urgent administrative action; any discussion about a possible rename of the article should happen at Talk:Supplemental nursing system. Your second and third points are likewise content issues best handled at the article's talk page, although I caution you that you need to be careful with claims about your own product. As far as your last point, Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. Moms should be getting "critical information" from lactation consultants, midwives, doctors, and other professionals and experts who can give advice. Wikipedia does not give advice of any kind; Wikipedia absolutely does not give medical advice. The article about a topic like supplemental nursing systems will include general information, ideally cited to independent reliable sources (although that's a flaw with the SNS article right now); products mentioned will be representative examples and not an all-inclusive list. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That was my question to Clayoquot, before this was escalated to this forum -- what kind of sources do we need? The current source for the article is adoption.com and a how-to by someone with unlisted credentials on a page that isn't even secure. Our product was mentioned as a best product for 2019 by Pregnant Chicken (https://pregnantchicken.com/best-pregnancy-baby-products-2019/) with 900K page views/month and 260K FB likes. Our product and methodology was also mentioned in Forbes, Cornell University (https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/07/alum-wife-build-bridge-better-breastfeeding), Cornell Daily Sun and industry publications (https://babyandchildrensproductnews.com/8068/laallys-bridge-helps-with-latching-milk-production/).

None of this was sponsored -- we're literally a husband and wife team trying to make a difference and help parents. This is also why I am so passionately defending this and so upset about how we were treated in our original discussions with Clayoquot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airmax617 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Airmax617: As to the kind of sources you need see WP:RS. Paul August ☎ 19:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Airmax617: I get it, you're here with the best of intentions. However, you're at the crossroads of two areas that draw a lot of attention from experienced editors because they have caused a lot of problems in the past:

• WP:COI: Actions by editors with a conflict of interest when writing about themselves, their products, their companies, etc. We've had a lot of bad experiences with people out to shamelessly promote themselves (which, IMO, your actions don't rise to the level of), so some editors will come down hard when COI behaviour takes place.
• WP:MEDRS: As tricky as the rules can be with reliable sources in the general sense, they're even more complicated on a topic related to medicine. SNS is right in that area of a topic related to medicine.

All that being said, I do agree with one statement you have made: the current sourcing situation at Supplemental nursing system is abysmal. The article needs some TLC from editors to improve the sourcing. To that end, because you do know the topic, I welcome you to contribute to the improvement. However, because of your conflict of interest, I strongly suggest that you request edits at the article's talk page, rather than editing the article directly. —C.Fred (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have also contacted Airmax617 directly on their user talk page.[180] I recommend this thread be closed: I do not think administrative action is needed here; I think further discussion on improving the article is best handled at article talk, and guidance to this user can be handled at their user talk. —C.Fred (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Off-wiki harassment of newspaper reporter, birthplace hoax regarding Scott Storch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:StorchBaby has posted a link showing that someone is harassing professional journalist Gus Garcia-Roberts who says in this tweet that the harassment has been going on for "nearly a decade" after he published an article in the Miami New Times describing how "Scott Storch is Not Canadian". Garcia-Roberts wrote in that article that "persistent misinformation" stemmed from Wikipedia wrongly listing Scott Storch's birthplace as Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, which poisoned a bunch of other sources including ostensibly good ones such as Associated Press – a case of circular referencing as portrayed in this XKCD comic.

The Storch biography has been subject to a hoax off and on since September 2006 when a Canadian IP editor vandalized the biography by changing the birthplace from New York to Sable Island, Nova Scotia, which is ridiculous as the island is basically a sandbar with wild horses.

Based on that bit of vandalism, the Scott Storch biography has been the target of a continuing hoax saying he is Canadian. Many IP editors have restored the hoax, including Special:Contributions/142.177.109.143 who vandalized the article by asserting Cape Breton, Special:Contributions/142.177.212.201 who wrote Nova Scotia, Special:Contributions/142.177.109.143 who wrote Cape Breton, Special:Contributions/65.94.143.215 who wrote Nova Scotia, Special:Contributions/24.222.89.53 who wrote Nova Scotia, Special:Contributions/24.222.161.49 from Alberta, and Special:Contributions/70.74.141.203 from Alberta who argued for a Canadian birth and then registered the username StorchBaby to continue pushing the hoax.

So here's the point – our new friend 70.74.141.203/StorchBaby is the one who has been harassing the reporter off-wiki. In Garcia-Roberts' tweet he shows a screenshot of email text with the words "award winning longform", "hilarious you didn't even get the interview lol" and a reference to an interview in allhiphop.com where Storch "allegedly stated he had never been to Canada." Our friend 70.74.141.203 wrote at DRN the following, "I wanted to add that Gus Garcia-Roberts himself never did interview Storch, and somehow won a longform story award for writing about him, which was a few short months after he put out this misinformation based on the alleged allhiphop.com interview." A minute later StorchBaby signed the comment by 70.74.141.203. So here we have someone making the same exact arguments to DRN, with the same uncommon word "longform" as he made in a harassing email to Gus Garcia-Roberts. To me it looks like 70.74.141.203/StorchBaby is emotionally connected to Storch in a negative manner, identifying as a "product of Storched Earth", and wishes to hurt him somehow. To me it looks like StorchBaby is either the original hoaxer or has been trying to cement the hoax in place. In any case I think the person's behavior is solidly WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RHaworth concerns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was looking at the list of recent Extended Confirmation Protection pages and noticed several were listed by User:RHaworth without a rationale. While asking for clarification on his talk page, I've found it's replete with examples of what appear to be an abuse of admin tools, inappropriate actions, bitten noobs, and general condescension/incivility towards those who question his authority/ask about actions (please note that this assessment is confined largely to the past 30 days and incidents on his talk page, I have not significantly explored further):

Deletions of Drafts that have potential, given a little time/TLC (D - Deletion(s) of draft(s)/original, A - AFD/DRV resulting in keep).

• Evan Nagao D A
• Shefali Rana Dx3 in rapid succession A
• Securities and Exchange Commission v. Electric Bond and Share company D A

Biting the noobs/uncivil remarks/Dismissive remarks to questions

• Learn to provide a link whenever you talk about a page.
• Count yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address who could not provide a link
• Kindly have the decency to wait until someone who a) has no CoI and b) knows what an article here should look like, thinks your company is notable and writes about it here.
• I can forgive you forgetting what you had done half an hour earlier...But I cannot forgive your apparent inability to look at your own contributions history.
• You are hopelessly long-winded...Text emailed. Go to DRV if you are not satisfied
• When asked why a page was deleted, he responded Please keep your fantasies on your own website
• Edit summary of responses: nothing really needing any reply

Others have noted and tried to talk to RHaworth about his behavior with no apparent effect/dismissive remarks about concerns

• Johnbod
• Reaper Eternal
• Andy Dingley
• me
• Dozens of other editors at various WP:AN boards...

Previous AN complaints

• IArchive 1008
• IArchive 980
• IArchive 903
• IArchive 852
• IArchive 753
• Archive 312

I would be derelict if I didn't mention that previous analysis by another user claimed that 94%+ of RHaworth's edits were unchallenged but a much higher percentage than usual that WERE challenged were overturned, the highest of an admin with 100 or more such deletions. He also deletes more than most as well.

Given that administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed and that problems are ongoing for years despite claims of reform, I submit that RHaworth is not fulfilling his duties as an Admin despite requests in the past month alone from multiple people and acknowledgement of such shortcomings in previous WP:AN cases. His good actions do not outweigh the bad. I request community opinion as to whether we should remove the bit from this individual. I recognize that speedy deletion admin work can be stressful (lots of spam to sift through), but if admins aren't going to do it in a kind manner, they will drive off new users and this needs to stop. Failure to take SOME action further demonstrates differing standards of behavior for admins and other users. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Users involved in the aforementioned discussions (Excluding AN historicals...feel free to add to the list)

@Johnbod, Reaper Eternal, Andy Dingley, Captainllama, RoySmith, AngusWOOF, Biographitor, Cryptic, Energynet, Hut 8.5, SmokeyJoe, SportingFlyer, Stifle, SoWhy, Railfan23, CaptainEek, Tracy Von Doom, Hughesdarren, CAPTAIN RAJU, Kolta99, Tone, Nosebagbear, Atlantic306, ShelbyMarion, and Doomsdayer520:

Discussion

As requested. Let's talk about it. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the examples given fail to convince me that the action proposed is warranted. There is some very mild incivility, but nothing close to warranting a de-sysop. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  If it were just this, I probably would agree, but the WP:AN history listed above leads me a different direction...YMMV... Thanks for the feedback! Buffs (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Let me comment on the Shefali Rana situation, since I was one of the editors who nominated it for speedy deletion. The version that RHaworth deleted (three times) and which he nominated for AfD was definitely eligible for deletion. It was only during the AfD discussion that anything close to proper sourcing was found and added to the article (which is why I eventually !voted keep there). RHaworth's deletions were completely policy-based. It was the AfD that prompted other editors to find adequate sources. So the process worked exactly as it should. If RHaworth hadn't acted, we would have had a bad article that clearly and significantly violated WP:BLP. The evidence presented here doesn't justify further action against RHaworth. The most recent of the previous WP:AN discussions was closed after RHaworth "acknowledged that the community has admonished them". I don't think we can re-legislate that close, and the evidence since then doesn't set off my alarm bells. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Are remarks like "Count yourself lucky that I am talking to an IP address..." appropriate? Buffs (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Is it the absolute model of civility and decorum? No. But it also isn't that bad. As I said above (and I think you agreed), this is mild incivility, not rising close to the line that would involve de-sysopping. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The draft deletion which went to DRV was a mistake, but it was overturned, and mistakes happen. I don't really see anything that would support a desysop here. If anything, the keep of this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shefali Rana is the thing that set off my flag the most. (Also, I was pinged, but only saw the ping when I randomly went to ANI to see what was going on.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback! Buffs (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lot of canvassing, these users don't all seem directly involved with this. Assuming good faith I think that this is just a misunderstanding. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Hold your horses there. I literally invited EVERYONE involved in the AFDs (oppose or support). There's no canvassing here. If anything, I UNDERinvited, if you want to include the previous WP:AN cases. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing for or against, it is still canvassing unless they were directly involved with the specific issue at hand. In my mind this is basically a call everyone that has ever said anything or about RH and thus they already have their own opinions. Why not let new people have new ones rather then rehash old arguments? If you think they should be admonished desysopped etc file an arbcom case, it won't happen here. I don't think it is warranted in this case but you're free to decide. Also keep in mind I said I thought this was just a misunderstanding and a good faith one at that, should help put your hackles down. I'm not attacking you or singling you or for a boomerang, just my own good faiath opinion of the situation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket:: WP:Canvassing begins like so: 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. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. --JBL (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, JBL! Buffs (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess that differs based on what your personal definition of "mass notifications." reasonable people may differ but to me that sure feels like mass notifications. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't actually get the ping, not sure why. I do think the ping list was legitimate Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said reasonable editors may differ :) definitely not the hill I plan to die on! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing is NOT "mass notifications". No one mentioned that term until you did, so I'm perplexed as to why the definition of a term that wasn't used is germane to the discussion. It's not in WP:CANVASSING either. Buffs (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean other then the mass notification part in the little table which talks about appropriate and not here[[181]]? In my opinion you were canvassing in an inappropriate manner. If you can't handle differing viewpoints, why ask here at all? Must they all be in line with yours? Have you never heard of a differing perspective? Maybe read the full page next time. Let me go further, do a search on that page for "Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand" I stated it seemed like the User's notified didn't seem directly involved and that this was a notify everyone who ever interacted with RH. That seems to be a simple restating about the nature of my opinion on the 25 users you pinged and their involvement here. I also stated it might be more helpful to have more uninvolved editors weigh in rather then those with established or entrenched opinions which again if you read the full page is in line with "More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it. " Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• On the actual issue at hand, I'm concerned that though we don't (and, believe, won't) see any particularly poor or egregious errors, we are seeing a slow string of communication and CSD related admonitions (which are more for ones that clearly shouldn't have been accepted, rather than incorrect but legitimate calls). I'd like some further consideration from RHaworth into whether anything has/is changing from the previous ANI discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• RHaworth is definitely abrasive, not to me, but to new editors. He could use more tact, be less dismissive and I worry that he doesn't always evaluate speedy deletion rationales before deleting pages. But a complaint on ANI is no way to desysop an administrator. He was brought to AN in August for similar reasons, he was admonished there and I think that instance might overlap with the time covered by this complaint. Bottom line, if you seek any admin's bit, you're going to have to file a complaint with the arbitration committee, nothing will come of a complaint to ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• I've been concerned that RHaworth isn't taking feedback like this seriously enough. Past AN/ANI discussions have frequently ended with him saying "I'm sorry, I made a mistake". I take these statements at face value, and they are a good first step; but they need to be accompanied by a genuine effort not to repeat those mistakes, and I'm less than convinced that effort has been made. That said, the proposed sanction isn't within the power of this noticeboard; only ARBCOM has that within its remit. The most we can do (and even this is likely to be controversial) is to topic ban him from specific admin actions. I'm not certain I'd support such a sanction at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• While I haven't reviewed the merits of this case, I'm unconvinced doing so would yield meaningful results. Given the frequency of complaints, (alleged) issues with RHaworth's conduct should be sent to ArbCom so a proper review can be conducted. -FASTILY 05:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• I was not pinged, tho I have previously commented on these matters to RH. He almost always takes a correct or at least defensible action; he has increased his willingness to revert or leave the matter to others; he has never quarreled with my restoration of his deletions, but his behavior to new users is harming the encyclopedia. I think he does mean to improve, but improving in something that has become a behavior for many years can be difficult. He needs more than just a strong reminder. I wish we had some alternative to arb com. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Reply from RHaworth. I question to what extent my behaviour to newbies is actually harming the encyclopedia. At the core of the problem is the question: is it in right ordering for an admin to say "I think that you should not be contributing here"? Surely we do not have to give words of encouragement to every spammer and vanity page author? I claim that I am pretty good at distinguishing between "no-hopers" and potentially useful contributors and that I usually give encouragement to the latter.

I insist that all my messages are within the limits of parliamentary language but perhaps I should think more in terms of diplomatic language even though, for me, it takes longer to find the appropriate words. As a specific example could someone please tell me how I should have replied here to Dmitry Tolkunoff. He had posted a blatant advert for what I assumed was his own company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3rd party talk section blanking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear administrators, please restore https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&diff=914361234&oldid=914360738 thank you for your kind consideration of this request. EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to have waited for Jehochman to respond before bringing it here? El_C 03:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

How long would you wait if he had done it to you? EllenCT (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been addressed on my talk page. It makes no sense to come here before attempting direct discussion, especially when direct discussion is requested in the edit you have disputed. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 07:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• That was a poor move on Jehochman’s part. I think there’s still something to be addressed via discussion here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What’s going on at that user talk page is not right. Nevertheless, I undid my disputed edit because I’m going to be offline for most of the day today and don’t have time to discuss it further until possibly tonight or tomorrow. Jehochman ^Talk 09:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring it. I hope she answers. EllenCT (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry for troubling you. Everything is now in good order. Jehochman ^Talk 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transphobic comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:James Cantor has called some trans women "autogynephilic MtF's" in an edit summary. And he thinks that's an acceptable thing to call people. See the discussion over on his talk page.

According to his bio he's worked with Ray Blanchard - the transphobe who coined the term autogynephilia.

I've explained to him that the term is highly insulting and degrading, and I've explained why:

The person who coined it is a transphobe, and the term refers to the insulting notion that being trans is merely a fetish.

He refuses to cease using this transphobic and uncivil language.

Is there an admin who'd be willing to intervene on this matter?

Thanks --Wickedterrier (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While the term is a passe relic, it's not inherently a slur. Insulting to trans folks, but unfortunately still a marginally accepted term in academia. It seems akin to Oriental to me. Not sure admin intervention is warranted here. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oriental is literally a slur. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I am not in a position to question or refute that. My apologies. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In the US, yes. But not so in the UK where it is indeed often regarded as merely old-fashioned.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Counter-point - the UK is often, at its baseline bigote,d when it comes to people from East Asia; a relic of their colonial glory days no doubt. So you suggesting that the literal racial slur is just quaint where you come from is really just highlighting the awful views on the topic there. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a term that often appears in German academia, and there's even a well known group, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society), that is dedicated to near-east studies (particularly Ancient Egypt and Syria). Now, I'm not a colonialism expert, but I don't recall the Germans having a colonial empire in Asia (or much of anywhere, as, to quote Blackadder, it consisted of "a small sausage factory in Tanganyika"). The word "Orient" doesn't have a universal meaning, either, as you might note that for Germans it refers not to East Asia, but the Middle-East. Words that are offensive in one place, and time are not in another. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Holy hell, this shouldn't need to be said, but please stop trying to argue caveats to a slur being a slur. It's really not necessary, nor a particularly impressive look. Wikipedia is an international melting pot, so "it's not a slur in my country" is not an excuse for using slurs. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Trans topics used to be under discretionary sanctions. That was superseded by the Gamergate discretionary sanctions, which is about any "gender-related dispute or controversy". This is a bit more restrictive than the old discretionary sanctions, but it sounds like this may be a "dispute or controversy". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not too acquainted with the concept of autogynephilia, but I can say that the term "MtF" is still used in scholarly publications although it is perhaps on the way out in favor of better terminology. But I wouldn't say that MtF, in itself, is transphobic. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • So you're not acquainted with it, but perhaps you should be before weighing in. The term "autogynephile" is used to insult trans women and cast aspersions that their motivation for transitioning is sexual. This is literally posting insults on the pages of living people. rspεεr (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I prefer full disclosure of my knowledge level while commenting on the portion that I am familiar with. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why we tolerate Cantor editing articles on this subject, he is here to advocate for a POV that the trans community find deeply offensive, and is part of the group that is responsible for that term, so not just some disinterested expert. Guy (help!) 16:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• The aforenoted writers are correct in that my language is exactly in line with professional standards. Extremists among activists are entitled to disagree, of course, but that is neither here nor there for WP. I have no idea how to judge what language is going into or out of fashion: Changes among professionals and RSs are less influenced by activists, but the activists are more apparent in social media and google searches. As I say, activists are free to disagree with me, but yelling "transphobe" anyone who disagrees is what is uncivil. All of this is quite reminiscent of the Sexology ArbCom case:
  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology

My views now are as they were then: Folks are free to their activism, but not to bring it to WP.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Exactly in line with professional standards"... except it's not? It's not accepted in the trans community and is widely considered a slur (FYI- some adult language in that link)... and just plain incorrect. Guy is right. Im senseing a form of WP:COI here- this is someone who is involved with this term and should not be editing articles regarding gender. Your right James, folks are free to activism- but you should really keep yours off of Wikipedia. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's certainly not "in line with professional standards". And to consider anyone who says otherwise an "extremist" is ridiculous. I don't personally think the term is top-tier offensive where its use is WP:ZT, but it's certainly not benign. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Recent examples of other professionals in my field include (one of whom is herself an openly autogynephilic transwoman):

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110016

https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1016-9040/a000276?journalCode=epp

Posting examples of activists promoting their views does not discount anything I said. Indeed, it exemplifies what I said.— James Cantor (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

James Cantor I do no think that the opinion of one self reported " autogynephilic" transwoman is proof of anything. The numbers of "self hating" (choose your group) are legion, and the literature and popular culture are full of transwomen who subsequently regret their decision, albeit too late..post surgery. Not all transwomen can successfully transition, and find their dream going up in smoke, but one or two does not speak for all and does not justify using a term that the group feels is a slur. An analogy perhaps is the "N" word, used freely without opprobrium or demeanment amongst (some) blacks, it is a vicious slur when used by someone who has not had to bear the harm done by that slur. The same with the word queer. It is inappropriate and considered a slur for "streights" to use the word in describing a gay, but it is not so considered when gays use it within their own community and context. I will acknowledge that perhaps some gays might object to the word, regardless it's source. The same can be said for many labels.Oldperson (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No, but it does show you that this is widely considered a slur and you ought not to use it. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The contextual use of "autogynephilic" in the literature is a reference to what the subject finds erotic. Given the controversy, I see no reason the use of the word should be tolerated outside, possibly, of this specific academic context. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi James. Just to be very clear - I didn't confront you over using "autogynephile" in an academic context. Plaster it all over academic articles if you like (assuming the topic ban doesn't happen). But just don't call people autogynephiles in your own voice (ideally anywhere, but Wikipedia admins are unlikely to do anything about your behavior outside of Wikipedia). Edit summaries are not an academic context and you will get called on your bullshit by "activists" (although that's another label I reject - I'm merely asking you to be polite). While your friend in academia may be fine with the term, most trans women (the correct spelling is "trans women") aren't and find it to be rather insulting - and you seem to know that already. --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no WP valid statement here for me to respond to, and I am not aware of Wickedterrier having any power to tell me what to do off-WP. I'd point out to anyone, however, that there are many effective ways to convince people to change their behaviour, but none of them is in this that post.— James Cantor (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support t-ban from gender issues, broadly construed - if the person has a CoI involving having disclosed working with well known transphobes and uses transphobic language on their user page, they should be encouraged to edit some other part of the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• That view is not consistent either with WP:COI or with WP:Expert. It is indistinguishable from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.— James Cantor (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Being a collaborator with transphobes and then making transphobic statments in user space seems to put this discussion outside the boundaries of WP:EXPERT suggest WP:PROFRINGE may be a more apropos policy here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• That argument is circular. That you see them as transphobes is the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The RSs say what they say.— James Cantor (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban James clearly sees no problem with their psuedoscientific views and refuses to stop editing in areas where they are clearly conflicted. Obligatory: I'm not a admin, so sorry if I'm not supposed to voice my support on topic bans. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• What did I say anywhere that was pseudoscience rather than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Please be specific.— James Cantor (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• ​Autogynephilia is psuedoscience. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps you might introduce that claim to the WP page on the topic. Neither the RSs nor the consensus of editors there appear to agree with you. There isn't much that can be added by just more WP:IDONTLIKEIT.— James Cantor (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban A single edit is not enough to topic ban for me, and I won't support unless folks can show Cantor has a pattern of disruptive editing in gender areas. But the comment was pretty clearly a slur, Cantor wasn't just discussing autogynephilia, they clearly used it to demean activists, by dismissing them as "autogynephilic MtF's". That is disruptive editing. Cantor should be formally warned to be careful in the very tense area of gender editing, and that if we have to make it to ANI again, there will be a topic ban. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, I wasn't dismissing or demeaning anyone. Indeed, I appear widely in the media supporting autogynephilic transfolks. Rather, I was saying the activists are not a representative sample of the people they represent.— James Cantor (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• James, your clearly fighting a losing battle here. Why not just agree to stop using the word on Wikipedia? TheAwesomeHwyh 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Check your counting. Because the actual editing policies permit it and accurately reflecting the RSs require it. Also, I would be a poor scientist if I changed my thinking due to social pressure rather than the facts of a situation. Indeed, my own notability has exactly come from departing from the crowd when that's where the evidence pointed.— James Cantor (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly you aren't here to build an encyclopedia- but merely to push psuedoscientific garbage on all of us. You're ignoring the facts and only only making me support a topic ban even more, James. We've spent more than enough time dealing with your garbage, now it's time to take it to the landfill. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll WP:AGF here, I believe that Cantor was well meaning, and that perhaps I misread his comment. While autogynephilia has long been used to dismiss trans folks, I don't think it should be seen as automatically negative, and in rereading the comment, don't think Cantor meant it to be disparaging. @TheAwesomeHwyh: Please remember to be civil btw. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. Perhaps I got too caught up in the heat of the moment. I'll step back now. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - Doesn't seem severe enough to warrant that. Also, per Captain Eek. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Cantor has a conflict of interest as a sexologist who wants trans women's identity to fall under the purview of sexology (which is offensive to trans women like me, and against the WPATH standards of care). WP:Expert is not a guideline that applies because he is not a credible expert on gender; "autogynephilia" is a discredited fringe view. But the worst part is that he has digging in that he should be allowed to edit demeaning terminology onto trans women's biographical pages. What possible good could come from encouraging him to keep editing on this topic and being subtler about it? rspεεr (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Similarly transparent: WP:Expert doesn't apply because he's not a credible expert, and he's not a credible expert because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.— James Cantor (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban to me, the real problem here is a few editors overstating their case in an attempt to silence someone who has opinions they don't like. I have little sympathy for the thought police and I hope that they fail. Lepricavark (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• What ever happened to WP:AGF? Calling your peers the "thought police" is hardly constructive. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• AGF went out the window when several editors decided that tarring James Cantor with labels and attempting to silence him was easier than having a calm, adult-level discussion. I make no apologies for calling out such behavior, even if it bothers one of the guilty parties. Disagreements are, and always will be, a part of this collaborative project, but it is hardly collaborative or constructive to try to win an argument with tars and feathers. There are few things more obnoxious than a person who is so convinced that he is right that he cannot permit others to speak. Lepricavark (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think legitimate evidence has been presented that this Cantor is presenting fringe vs just research that others don't like. I agree that we should make reasonable efforts to avoid offense but at the same time Cantor wasn't talking about anyone here. If insulting people not involved with Wikipedia (the activists in this case) is a bad thing then we need to be careful when ever someone calls the subject of Wikipedia BLP a "misogynist asshat". Springee (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Folks are free to their activism, but not to bring it to WP. James Cantor - that's problem is that people don't want to be described that way, and your insistence that you can use a term because you use it in your subfield of study amounts to activism, and problematic activism. You're willing to risk a topic-ban over your right to use a term. That's activism.

  We're a collaborative project. We need to be able to work together. Or you can choose not to work collaboratively, but if that's the case, then maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. If James can't learn to accept others opinions then he really isn't cut out to be a Wikipedia editor. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] Your comment suggests you have not reviewed the relevant page(s). Anyone reviewing the edit history of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology&action=history] will see extremely collaborative work. What little conflict there was was resolved easily...and that the editor making this ANI entry has had no involvement in the pages at all. Their only involvement is this conflict.— James Cantor (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but I seem to recall that you have a long history of agenda-driven conflict and were subject to an iban once before. So there's a pattern here. Guettarda (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is little I can say to a vague recollection. If this is a reference to the ArbCom Sexology case, the result did include an interaction ban between me and user:Jokestress; however, reading the ArbCom decision shows that all findings faulted her behavior, not mine, and topic banned her, not me. That is, the interaction ban was not a reflection of my behavior, but hers. If this were not the situation begin recalled, I am open to hearing what was.— James Cantor (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If James can't learn to accept others opinions then he really isn't cut out to be a Wikipedia editor - I'm stunned by the lack of self-awareness, TheAwesomeHwyh. You're trying to ban an editor from a topic area because you can't accept his opinion, whilst (hypocritically) complaining that they won't accept your opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand me- I don't expect them to change their entire opinion, but at least be flexible in avoiding using a term some have deemed to be offensive. I think its best for me to just step back from this conversation at this point. Peace, TheAwesomeHwyh 20:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• • When I look at your contributions, I see many contentious edits to contentious topics of gender identity, from a very particular point of view. I see dismissals of completely typical trans people as "activists", even ones as unremarkable as me. You sure work the word "activists" in a lot. You are pushing a political view, not one that can be justified by your credentials in sexology. rspεεr (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't I use the word "activist" any more or less often than I believe it applies. If there are edits based on non-RS and non-WP policy reasons, you have not cited them.— James Cantor (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, per Springee. Paul August ☎ 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - having the same though as Lepricavark. This is an attempt at silencing. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban The evidence is not at all convincing that a topic ban is necessary in this instance. Gender and other sexology subjects are topic areas that attract drama and disagreements and to be honest probably are the most difficult editing area on Wikipedia, so it is not surprising James Cantor has found conflict. My experience is that James Cantor has a POV but he is quite flexible and reasonable and edits within policy and guidelines. It is easy to jump the gun and incorrectly form an opinion that James Cantor is a problematic COI editor by not considering these facts, so I would suggest impartial editors supporting a topic ban not go with their initial instincts but to consider the context of the editing environment James Cantor is editing in. He is a mainstream and valuable editor, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban: I'm rather bewildered at how a scientist, even in a controversial field, can be berated for using the terminology of his field. Anyway, for the moment, I don't believe a pattern has yet been established that would be sufficient to sustain any action; and, moreover, I agree wholly with Mr rnddude. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree withJames Cantor but I don't agree. in principle, with banning unless there is evidence of vandalism and bad faith, however James should fully disclose his professional association and opinion with his editing. If we start banning people because we don't like them, we disagree, we feel they are misled, misconceived, delusional or whatever where will we end up? How does it go? "I don't like what you say, but will defend to my death your right to say it? Admittedly a little over the top, after all we don't have the right to cry fire in a crowded theater. How about taking a deep breath and giving it a break James? A piece of advice I will take myself, elsewheres. However a perceived slur is none the less a slur. You (third person) may not believe the word is a slur or conveys negativity, but the recipient does and that is what counts. Words wound, more important words can and do lead to action (adverse and negative), private, public and politicalOldperson (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what could be a better such disclosure than my editing under my real world name, my identifying my profession on my userpage, and my demonstrated and sustained willingness to self-censor, such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames_Cantor&type=revision&diff=269470346&oldid=267136394 . As shown in the already linked Sexology ArbCom case, has been other editors, not I, unwilling to self-regulate.— James Cantor (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose with caveats There's only one potentially problematic edit summary, and there is not enough of a conflict here for me to support a topic ban. That being said, the article alone is particularly potentially controversial, and I think a soft warning - maybe more of a reminder - is merited that any offensive POV-pushing would merit a topic ban due to the sanctions on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per various above opposes. Support seems largely focused on "I don't like the term 'autogynephilic'" and describing it as a term used in pseudoscience in order to dismiss opposing opinions. Given the documentation by the NIH, it doesn't seem the term is outside standard usage nor should its usage be considered so offensive as to ban/block anyone who uses it even once. "I'm offended" is a horrific rationale for a TBAN or a block. Buffs (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  BuffsYour NIH link says SOME not all transsexuals are motivated by Autogynephilia. IfJames Cantor or any other editor is defining MtF transsexuals as Autogynephiliacs then some sanction is called for, or at least an edit correction.Oldperson (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I never said that trans people are all motivated by autogynephilia. My point is that the word itself is not automatically inappropriate nor should any such opinions result in such exclusion via "I'm offended". Buffs (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Cantor's agenda against trans women goes beyond the use of a single word, although the word reveals a lot about which fringe agenda in particular he is pushing. Look at how consistently he's calling trans women "activists" for simply defending their identity. And let's get away from the topic of how many trans women are "motivated by autogynephilia"; it's not a valid concept, it's just an accusation. The accusation causes more than just offense; it causes trans women to be seen as perverts and excluded from things. Anyway, I expect that Cantor is not going to realistically face any sanctions now given how this discussion has gone, but let's keep in mind the view he's pushing (as his exclusive purpose for editing Wikipedia) for when this comes up again. rspεεr (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• What I hear this to mean is that "I am not going to AGF not matter what any ANI consensus says." The only options are that the consensus is correct when it agreea with me or the consensus is wrong. That Repper themself needs to alter their approach appears not to be an option. I'm not sure what to do with that.— James Cantor (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per Literaturegeek, Buffs, and others. The enthusiasm of some for a topic ban is way beyond what is warranted, given the only offense so far is a single edit summary. Everything else is vague unsupported accusations of transphobia and pseudoscience. He has never tried to use the term to refer to a specific individual, and I have no reason to think he will. At most, I think what he should take away from this is that the social environment has changed and he should be careful about how he uses this term. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Editors addressed chilling effect aspects with regard to language on transgender topics at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate. And considering that the terminology discussed there wasn't enough for a consensus on restricting language on talk pages, I don't see how Cantor should be reprimanded for, via an edit summary, using terminology used in the fields of psychology and sexology. To say he can't use this language would impair talk page space for similar reasons noted in the aforementioned Arbitration case about limiting language. Like I stated before on autogynephilia, "WP:Fringe currently states, 'In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.' With regard to studying the causes of transsexuality, I'm not sure that I would call Blanchard's typology fringe. The causes of transsexuality are not well understood; there is no general agreement about what causes it or even what doesn't cause it (except perhaps that rearing doesn't influence a person's true gender identity), and a number of sexologists and other researchers support Blanchard's typology. But, yeah, Blanchard's typology is controversial in the transgender community (although there are some transgender women who support the typology)." Furthermore, autogynephilia is in the DSM-5. That stated, Cantor does have a WP:COI when it comes to the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article, as also noted on the article's talk page, so some might feel that he should not edit the article (and other articles where he has a COI) directly. But that's another matter. If Cantor engages in problematic editing due to his COI, that can always be handled. The above case is not problematic editing due to his COI. It's not problematic editing by any Wikipedia standard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. This is just an attempt to silence editors who don't think/speak/behave by the rules of transgender activism (which is that any comment can be deemed transphobic). The only fault I see in User:James Cantor's summary is the word "most". If I were to write such a summary, I would have used "some " instead. Autogynephilia is a recognized dysfunction "defined as a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female" (author: Lawrence A.A., also available at NCBI). The term "TERF" is considered a slur and offensive by those who are tagged with it ... yet Wikipedia has a TERF article that no one to my knowledge has objected to. Wikipedia, however, does not have a stand-alone article for Autogynephilia. I wonder why. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Not editor ban. I agree with RSpeer and Buffs. The use of the word autogynephilia appears to be harmful and leads to adverse actions. I would shy away from Blanchard as a source. His opinion is not at all unanimous or even consensus. He is in fact binary. His opinion is obviously based on a belief that men are attracted to women exclusively and vice versa as he has only two classes of transgendered: homosexuals and autogynephiliacs. He does not take into consideration the Kinsey scale of human sexuality, or the possibility that many people are just born different. There is also much about human biology and genetics, not to mention psychology that we don't know and are still learning,such as markers on the chromosone. Admittedly there are post operative autogynephiliacs who discover, too late and to their chagin, that they "can't pass" and aren't accepted. It happens and you see them time to time to time in the news, but I take rspeer word that "autogynephilia" is a slur and should not be use, even though some use the word to describe themselves. That argument doesn't work because some blacks,especially rap artists, use the "N" word does not mean that whites can use it. People whowould use the word in publicly available sources like WP are using a credible source to advance a troublesome agenda. No different from using other harmful words.Oldperson (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how to react to a series of WP-irrelevant declarations. "I would shy away from Blanchard" is not how WP:RS works, "leads to adverse actions" is not how WP:V works, etc.— James Cantor (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Blanchard is obviously bias or ignorant,despite his "credentials" and thus his opinions are tainted, thus not a RS. despite his so called credentials. Despite the attempts on the part of editors to sound professional and neutral. There is no neutral ground on subjects such as transgender, TERF, racism, religion, politics. (I can make an exception, in some isnstances for politics though). An editors bias, pro or con,is evident from their comments. A person is either accepting or rejecting. Those that accept are philic (coining a word?), those that reject are, for the lack of a better word, phobic. The phobics are obviously very adept at using the policies and guidance of WP to present a persona/position that is academic or neutral. But no one is fooled. The emperor is naked is a quite appropriate analogy, and so is a stuck pig squealsOldperson (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, these opinions are just as irrelevant to any WP editing policy.— James Cantor (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both topic ban and editor ban: this is nothing but a blatant attempt by a small group of editors to silence an editor who has dared to express views they disagree with, and, as Lepricavark wrote above, "There are few things more obnoxious than a person who is so convinced that he is right that he cannot permit others to speak". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - topic, editor, whatever - seems like a thought policing exercise. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban - Best we not let political correctness rule the day. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: We can't legislate against people using technical terms on their own usertalk. We can't legislate against people having opinions we don't like, or against expressing those opinions on their own talkpages or in edit summaries. If there is a content dispute, discuss it on articletalk and seek a consensus resolution among interested editors using RS. If there is a conversation on someone's usertalk that someone else finds bothersome, that someone else should either leave the conversation or stay off the person's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued disruptive editing by User:Depay11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Depay11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a history of edit warring on BLP articles, specifically relating to relationship status of the individual. They have continued, post-block, with their disruptive editing. Recent edits include changing "wife" to "girlfriend" against sourcing. Some diffs include: [182] and [183].

• 3RR noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394#User:Depay11 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Warned), later blocked for 48 hours.

--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. If Depay11 continues doing this, I think an indefinite block should probably be the next step. I'm getting tired of disruptive editors who never communicate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hoax about the B-52's band singing "Time Warp"

Yeah, like the header says. The band never released a version of that song. Hoax examples:

• Aug 7 – Add the B-52's to "Time Warp"
• Aug 7 – Add "Time Warp" to B-52's
• Aug 12 – Re-add "Time Warp" to B-52's
• Aug 12 – Add "Time Warp" to Funplex album
• Aug 12 – Add "Time Warp" to B-52's discography
• Sep 5 – Re-add "Time Warp" to B-52's

Involved IPs:

• 2603:300C:1BF5:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2600:387:0:9C2:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This person appears to be interested in the exact same topics as blocked User:Verone66, who evades his or her block with a great many IPs including Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93, Special:Contributions/96.73.113.37 and the above-listed range 2603:300C:1BF5:6000:0:0:0:0/64. The IP geolocations indicate a visit to Tennessee from Texas.

Can we get a rangeblock on two involved ranges? Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

2603:300C:1BF5:6000::/64 hasn't been active since August. 2600:387 is a mobile IP range, so blocking a /64 won't do much good. On AT&T Wireless, people usually bounce around on a /59 or /60. I blocked the latest IP from that range. If it continues, I guess I can do a range block. It doesn't seem like there's collateral damage, but I didn't look very closely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Shaggy12001

New editor, Shaggy12001 (talk · contribs), off to a very poor start. Behavior indicates that a warning may not be sufficient; I recommend some form of disciplinary action. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@IllaZilla: With no edits for the last 16 hours or so, I don't it's severe enough to warrant action with no warning. I do agree that the edit summaries are unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for issuing them a warning. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've rev deleted the offensive edit summaries. Please report back if the warning has no effect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit, using {hlist} to add the second genre, is rather surprising for someone with supposedly only two previous edits. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Chandrayan 2 a moon mission , Weather present situation is Communication disruption or Landing failure or Crashed ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Chandrayan 2 a moon mission , Weather present situation is Communication disruption or Landing failure or Crashed ?

I am providing sources :

https://www.isro.gov.in/chandrayaan2-latest-updates

(Slashed123 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC))

This noticeboard does not serve as a centralized discussion for content disputes. El_C 17:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please allow to discuss at talk page of Chandrayan 2 , because many editors editing with out any sources.The above source says the present problem is

"Communication Disruption with Vikram lander, remaining all are safe and Orbiter working well"

(Slashed123 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP socking in edit wars

• WhiteStarG7 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)
• 94.66.59.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The user uses an IP sock to push the “UK first” thing over objections. Compare:

• [184] against [185],
• [186] against [187].

No significant doubt because the master is apparently Greek-speaking whereas the sock resolves to ppp-94-66-59-149.home.otenet.gr. Please, hard-block the IP (albeit enabling user_talk) and admonish the master. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Even more impressive diff: comparison between revisions by two warrior’s personae in European_theatre_of_World_War_II. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sustained campaign of misattribution of views

I have requested that User:92.14.216.40 desist from attributing to me views that I have not in fact expressed. This has been sustained, largely at my talk page (particularly the section Hebrides Change) and Talk:English people. Despite a promise to desist the misattribution of statements to me has persisted. I requested that the IP strike a thread containing views falsely attributed to me but they compounded it with a further misattribution (the quote of mine is genuine, the subsequent supposed claim of mine is fabricated).

Pinging @Drmies:, who chanced upon the IPs general activities and their thread on my talk page and engaged with me sympathetically in this regard (also in regard to a sustained campaign of forum-posting by this IP and its possible relation to another largely IP-based forum campaign). Drmies may have a perspective. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, do you maybe fancy telling me what you did mean by the comment? I don't exactly know how else to read it. You've repeatedly stated the English people are not a West Germanic ethnic group because they absorbed and assimilated non-Germanic peoples over the centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As if to illustrate, a typical example; I've stated no such thing. You will be supporting this assertion with diffs, presumably? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a perspective: this is crazy and out of hand. The IP is obviously NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I am at all, Drmies. Again I'm discussing this on an article about English people which Mutt is actively involved in a heated defense of his position with several other editors who all echo the same thoughts as me and provide sources for classifying the English people, as speakers of a West Germanic tongue, as a West Germanic people. Hardly controversial, I'd have thought?

Mutt, on the other hand, seems to strongly disagree. Or sorry he doesn't disagree, apparently, but just claims he disagrees and then denies he disagreed when you claim he did disagree. And then ignores a direct quote from him disagreeing? What am I supposed to do with that, exactly?

I'm trying to improve the article and have a more objective, accurate page on the English people, Mutt seems to be pushing for his personal feelings and agendas to be realized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

How long has it been since you cited a damn source? Looking at both your current IP and your previous (92.4.16.225), it looks like, oh, maybe once or twice in the last year? You go on and on and on about the things that you recall and how you feel about them, but basically never back your arguments with authoritative sources. You may feel compelled to reply to this with a tu quoque fallacy, but that doesn't really help you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Cited a source for speakers of a West Germanic language being a West Germanic ethnic group? Well, as I mentioned, several sources were already provided to Mutt by other editors which he ignored and brushed off because... as he seemed to imply the reason he didn't accept this classification for the English people is that the English had absorbed and assimilated non-Germanic peoples over time? When asked for an example of an ethnic group that had not absorbed and assimilated peoples that at one point in time did not belong to the same ethnolinguistic group he provided absolutely nothing.

What is being said here? That the English cannot be classified into an ethnolinguistic group? Are they alone in the world, a unique case of an ethnic group that cannot be sorted into an Indo-European, or other, ethnolinguistic family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems relevant to point out Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Modified by motion (April 2011) at this point, in particular the parts about civility and reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This is fair. However I, and the several other editors that have clashed with Mutt over this, am the one putting forth an objective, academic classification of the English people. It's Mutt who is getting emotional about this and denying the classification of a people as what they objectively are in an ethnolinguistic sense. If you take issue with the English being classed as West Germanic, first and foremost I would ask why. Which I did with Mutt. His reasoning was selective and could be applied to any ethnic group on the planet, it does not stop them from warranting classification. It does not make the English some special case where we have to act like they cannot be classified due to the political sensitivities of certain people to that classification.

Again, if they are not Germanic now then the people they absorbed historically were never Celtic in the first place. That's not up for dispute or debate. That's not an insensitive comment, it is reality. If you're going to apply this brush to the English when it comes to Germanic classification you also have to apply it to them when it comes to the Celtic peoples they absorbed.

These may be emotional and sensitive issues, but we're here to deliver facts, and to class the English as anything other than West Germanic is blatantly wrong unless you're also going to rob any ethnic group of the ability to be classed into an Indo-European (or other) family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Every single other ethnic group which speaks Germanic languages is listed as a Germanic ethnic group in the opening sentence. Austrians, Germans, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Flemish, Dutch... Every single one. Why? Why the exception with English people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This is just getting beyond a joke now. Those pages opening lines describing all these ethnic groups as Germanic are often sourced themselves with sources with specifically include the English when describing Germanic peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve content disputes; see WP:DR. As for the behavior issues, if there is a case for WP:NOTHERE or WP:DE, I think someone should present it. The only claim so far with even an attempt at substantiation is that "they keep saying I said things I didn't say," which seems unworthy of this page. There is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or essay against "sustained misattribution of views". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP is the only one raising issues of content here, in characteristically copious measure, but it shows the efficacy of their redirection tactics if it leads anyone into imagining this submission is a content dispute. It's plain I have addressed solely behaviour here, NOTHERE behaviour. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP is the only one raising issues of content here and the IP is who that part of my comment was directed at. And if "they keep saying I said things I didn't say" is the totality of your NOTHERE case, I'd say you've failed to make it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

...and to make false accusations against other editors on Talk pages covers "sustained misattribution of views" pretty deftly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't cite essays here, particularly obscure ones that lack widespread support. I thought about inserting "widely-accepted" before "essay" above, but decided it wasn't worth another edit as most editors at this page understand how we commonly apply essays in behavior issues. In hindsight I was wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict and as you appear to have subsequently clocked:) You actively invited it with your remark that there was nothing from them to cite. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Most editors don't habitually frequent this page so don't be so condescending. If it's not specified in policy etc., self-evident lying is an acceptable practice? Really? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, here's one. This is actually Cassandrathesceptic (talk · contribs), who probably has more edits logged out than logged in, and it would take me quite some time to tally all of the IPs they have used. They have essentially been using talk pages as forums for at least five years, rarely making suggestions or arguments based on sources, and frequently making factual assertions to support a proposed edit, but without actually citing the source of those facts. I think they are acting in good faith, and they do very well to stick to talk pages, but their contributions are almost never helpful. These are newbie mistakes, not five-year-veteran mistakes. Most likely the only reason this account has not already been indeffed is that their (logged in) edits come in brief spurts months apart, most edits are attributed to dynamic IPs, and they are only disrupting talk pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, the IP is denying the connecting to that account on Matt Lunker's talk page and Cassandrathesceptic's talk page. If it's clear they are connected, this is IMO strong evidence of abusive WP:sockpuppetry. While it's sometimes okay to edit logged out, as with multiple accounts if you are editing the same articles or highly related areas this definitely needs to be disclosed. While editor's understandable do not always want to connect their account with an IP, this then means you need to take due care. The occasional mistake may be excepted. But continuing both editing from your IP and you account in the same articles or otherwise highly related areas means you cannot disavow a connection. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed Cassandrathesceptic was not notified yet so I did so. BTW, the user sub page User:Cassandrathesceptic/Scots Language should probably be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. Not sure if people feel it qualifies for U5 or it needs to be taken to MFD. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's honestly hard to tell wrt socking. There are countless IPs accross the TalkTalk ranges that rant endlessly about essentially this exact subject, who almost never cite sources, and refuse to sign their posts. Some of them are clearly Cassandra, and the IPs that admit to being Cassandra overlap in range with this particular IP user we are discussing. If they are actually different people, then it's just two different people who aren't being helpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I strongly disagree. Someone who keeps misattributing a contributor's views should be blocked per WP:NPA. If you're having trouble understanding someone you can seek clarification on what they meant. If you still keep misunderstanding then there is a simple solution. Stop attributing views to them. If an editor refuses to do so and instead keeps attributing to someone a view they do not hold, this effectively a personal attack and should be treated accordingly. That said, if this is mostly occuring on Mutt Lunker's talk page it would have been better for them to simply ban the IP from there and see if that stopped it first. If the IP kept posting to the user's talk page that is a simple block. If the IP instead started misattributing views elsewhere that's also a clearer block since someone cannot reasonably be expected to read and correct their views every time they are mentioned all over the place. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

To note, the misattribution of views by this particular IP are not restricted to my talk page but also at Talk:Hebrides#English-speaking and multiple threads at Talk:English people. I repeatedly asked them to desist at both and specifically requested they strike the comments at the latter.

If this is connected with Cassandrathesceptic and associated IPs, such misattributions are scattergunned across countless articles stretching back years. (Their earliest activity, that I am aware of, is in April 2012 as a string of roving IPs, the username account being a late acquisition, rarely used in the overall picture of their IP edits.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In my experience personal attack has been limited to statements about what "you are", not what "you did" and certainly not what "you said". In any case, yours is the first reference to NPA, so you disagreed with a position I hadn't taken. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course falsely accusing someone of having a view they do not have is a personal attack. Otherwise I could say "Mandruss believes niggers are not human and all deserve to die" when you do not believe that and have never said anything to lead people to reasonably believe you believe that and it's not a personal attack simply because I never actually said you're a racist even though I think most people would prefer to be called a racist than to be falsely accused of having such a belief. In any case "There is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or essay against "sustained misattribution of views" vs "you disagreed with a position I hadn't taken". You explicitly said there was no Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay rather than no "I am not aware of" or "no one has brought up a relevant policy" or any such thing. So you did explicitly say there was no such policy, guideline or essay which is clearly wrong, since it goes against NPA at a minimum. And I was not "disagreeing with a position that you hadn't taken" but instead disagreeing with a position you had taken namely "there is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay". So @Mandruss: when you're going to make up bullshit about what you actually said, I will disengage. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But you're going to make up bullshit about what you actually said is not a personal attack because you can read my mind and therefore know when I'm "making up bullshit". That's fairly typical ABF doublethink for this page. Don't bother disengaging, I'll do it for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I apologise, I intended to say "if you're going" but in my anger I said "when". I intended to acknowledge the possibility maybe this was't what you intended, but it was how it was coming across to me and if you were going to do that, I would not be engaging further. I had no desire to do so, since you seemed to have falsely accused me of "disagreeing with a position you hadn't taken" something I considered extremely offensive. Especially since it seemed clear as I explained in some detail in my modified response, that I was explicitly and intentionally disagreeing with what you had actually said namely your claim that "there is no policy, guideline or essay which prevents sustained misattribution of views". As I pointed out with an intentionally offensive example in my second response, this makes absolutely no sense in my eyes from even a basic consideration of NPA and how it's normally interpreted and applied, or for that matter, how it should be interpreted or applied. I do not know why you said what you said about how I'd "disagreed with a position you hadn't taken", whether your forgot what you had said or thought you'd said something you didn't and didn't check before replying or misread or misunderstood what I was disagreeing with or something else. (I myself made this mistaken when I initially applied and assumed I'd said "if" only to later realise I did not so I can understand how easy it happens in the heat of the moment.) If you don't wish to offer an explanation that's up to you. But I was very angry when you accused me of it and so made a mistake when replying because of that, leaving out the key "if" and I apologise for that again. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

We had a miscommunication. If I'm guilty of a minor brain fart, and I'm not sure I am, then I apologize for it, and it was a brain fart of little consequence. It hardly seems worthy of the ~600 words of discussion so far, and I don't think it will be useful to conduct a thorough post-mortem to determine precisely what happened. Insinuations about "possible" bad faith are a different thing entirely. Apology accepted, no real harm done, but I hope you can learn to let anger subside before responding. Adrenaline is a nasty drug that fucks with the mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked Mutt for clarification which he never provides. In fact if you go over every exchange we've had he has repeatedly accused me of misattributing views to him when I am actually asking him what is views are on a subject, because he so rarely provides any defense of his position, or apparent position.

A pretty perfect example is the quote I provided for him on his own talk page where he basically states people do not change ethnolinguistic groups when their ancestors adopt new native languages because their ancestors before that once spoke different languages, which would again rob any ethnic group on the planet of the ability to be categorized into families. As I said if the people of the British Isles are not Germanic today, they were never Celtic. Something I've asked Mutt to elaborate on or to defend what I perceived to be his stance from his comment, and which he has yet to.

What exactly can I do when an editor repeatedly refuses to answer any questions you ask about his stance and instead interprets those as misattribution of views/personal attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If and editor does not wish to clarify, what you can do is stop bugging them. And stop deciding what they believe. It's ultimately none of your fucking business. The only thing that matters should be how we improve our articles based on reliable secondary sources and our policies and guidelines. The only views of of an editor that really matter are whether the text of an article accurately represents reliable secondary sources according to our policies and guidelines or whether there's a better alternative and anything related to such. (Like whether a source is a RS etc.) And even in these area's, there's rarely a good reason why you have to summarise someone's PoV. Every other editor can read their signed comments and decide for themselves when it matters, like deciding what the consensus is. It's definitely none of your fucking business what someone's views are of Germanic, Celtic, British Isles or any other people or ethnic groups or any other such jazz. Some editors are willing to share their views, within reason. Others are not. Leave the personal shit out of it and concentrate on building an encyclopaedia. If you are here to discuss your personal views, or the views of other editors, please leave. There are a million other forums on the internet where you can discuss your views. Wikipedia is not one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well it is my business, and all of our businesses, if he's blocking the improvement of the article with more accurate information, is it not? It's not a matter of person opinion or debate, the English people ARE a West Germanic ethnic group. You know you can "feel like" Hungarians are really just West Slavs due to their genetics, but at the end of the day they're not Slavs at all and nobody would class them as such. Your personal opinion is irrelevant until it leads to you blocking an objective opening line about the English people on their article. I'm not sure where your dissonance is coming from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The longer you go without citing a source, the less likely you are to sway anyone. Though if you do come up with sources to refer to, ANI is not the place. If you continue to post opinions and arguments without reference to sources, you will eventually be shown the door. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned, sources have been cited frequently both in the English people talk page AND on the articles of every other Germanic ethnic group, which Mutt has ignored and waived because, as he seems to imply, the English have absorbed non-Germanic peoples in the past? Again this can be applied to any ethnic group on the planet, just about. So where are we now? Sources have been provided, sources have been ignored, Mutt refuses to clarify his reasoning for doing so other than with logic that can be applied to any ethnic group. When you try to ascertain why he is being so obstinate regarding this he accuses you of misattributing views to him. Where are we now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re all at risk of being ‘Lunkered’. In other words an attempt is being made to manipulate you for malicious purposes. I have endured repeated accusations, threats, hostile-editing and bullying language from Mutt over several years. Mutt suffers from what I call ‘Wiki-rage’. Being confronted with facts which Mutt dislikes has periodically triggered attempts to shut down and/or intimidate. I’ve never deleted the list of postings on my Wikipage because taken together they amply illustrate a long record of ill-founded (and always personal) attacks. I'd invite you to simply take no notice of him – unless that is anyone would like to propose or initiate some more robust response to Mutt’s years-long history of aggression and dubious tactics.

Mutt especially likes to report that I'm a sock puppet simply because my IP address changes frequently. Well it does. I've no idea why. It just does - but I'm certainly no sock puppet.

Meanwhile I see Mutt now seems to have turned his wrath on another poor Wikipedian who has been corresponding with me. I'd advise both to disengage.

One of the main triggers for Mutt’s attacks and complaints about me is the material contained in the paper attached to my main page – ‘Scots Language: Inconvenient Truths’. If anyone is at all interested in the remarkable contrast between real fully-referenced history and nationalist-romantic 'history' then I’m sure they will find it as fascinating to read as I did to uncover. I must however very much agree with the previous contributor - although I don't mind folk expressing opinions, it's facts that count, not opinion. And it is with well-referenced facts we can all best contribute to Wikipedia - even, perhaps especially, when we may not like those facts. Best wishes Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah this is pretty ridiculous. I've seen him involved in these spats with at least 3 editors now and God knows how many in the past over this subject. It's extremely tiring, and I'm still waiting for his clarification on why the English are not a West Germanic people as the only reason he has given in the past, as well as for refusing valid sources which are cited in the articles for other Germanic ethnic groups, is one that can again be applied to any ethnolinguistic group on the planet and makes absolutely no sense.

Your personal distaste for the classification of a certain people into a certain ethnolinguistic family is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• 'Block the IP per WP:NOTHERE and then we can all go back to something more productive to do with our time than read this passive-aggressive apologia for why they believe tying English to a specific ethnicity is covered under WP:BLUESKY. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah we're not talking about whether all native English-speaking people are the one ethnic bloc, even though there's an argument to be made for that. We're talking about the English people, as in the historical people of England. If you're denying just natively speaking English alone makes you English then the classification of the English people as a West Germanic ethnic group is utterly irrelevant to you, as you're not English and you're not excluded from the English people being classified as a West Germanic ethnic group, which they obviously are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's also not WP:BLUESKY either as, like I've mentioned several times now, sources HAVE been provided. Sources which are accepted and used on the articles of every other Germanic ethnic group as justification for their classification as a Germanic ethnic group in the opening line.

So why the exception with the English? The only response that's been given can be applied to any ethnolinguistic group on the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

IP, yet again, the ANI is about behaviour, so stop arguing the toss about content. To note, the supposed sourcing was comprehensively blown out of the water, some not providing the support you claim, another packed with risible howlers.

Aside from the behaviour that prompted this thread – the personal attacks continuing above, to put bizarrely specific arguments in my mouth, unrelated to anything I have ever said - this IP’s latest activities indicate their motivation is solely to promote their unsupported POVs.

These include:

This long dormant talk page thread regards the wording of a particular edit and it’s perfectly clear from what the IP adds that they didn't even bother to read the text of the edit under discussion. They’re simply there to coatrack their unrelated point. (FWIW, this is almost all Cassandrathesceptic, or largely their IP socks, ever does.)

Altering cited text and adding new text without the provision of any sources.

This and this forum post.

The topper has to be changing this article to list all British people as ethnically English, with advocacy of extending this to include Irish people. Blue sky?!

Is this to be allowed to continue? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Raise your hand if, after all this chatter and all these useless edits, you still think that the IP is contributing anything here. Simonm223 has it right: NOTHERE applies. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I have given the person behind this IP address an indefinite block as not here to build the encylopedia but rather to argue. Please let me know if the same pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing crops up from other IPs or registered accounts. Those can then be blocked too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for acting decisively to block this IP.

A number of participants in this discussion and on my talk page have raised suspicions regarding close similarities to the POVs, editing, misattribution of views by, and IP range of, Cassandrathesceptic (talk · contribs) and their plethora of associated IP socks. It has also been noted that whether the individuals responsible are the same or different, their behaviour is equally unhelpful. Should we also act to close off this 7-year+ similarly hugely time-wasting, NOTHERE campaign? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As also noted, CtS has probably only survived for this long because of the difficulty of acting against what has largely been activity across perpetually novel IPs. The shielding from scrutiny afforded is presumbaly the reason they largely ceased use of their occasional named user account and reverted to IP-hopping after a previous ANI (not their first, they were range blocked several times in 2012) and associated Mfd. Action against the user account, however, would bolster any action against what are generally transparently characteristic IP-edits of this campaign. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, I appreciate the IP block. I am hoping you find the time (I know, busy days these days! Congrats!) to do one more loving thing and consider Mutt Lunker's suggestion above. Personally, I am convinced that Cassandra is a giant waste of time, which is disruptive enough already, but the continued logged-out editing is just the icing on the cake. Someone who shows so little interest in abiding by the simplest of rules has placed themselves out of the community. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Using a talk page to attack an editor

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A light unto BMK's path, to drive away the dimness.-- Deepfriedokra

Please note this thread. I have no objection to the use of the quote I made on that page. A clubby chat, which tries to partially out me while inferring that I am an anti-Semite, and symptomatic of Wikipedia's failure to deal with that, amounts to an extended personal attack. NMMGG had a long history of arguing I am an anti-Semite and has been sanctioned for it. Nishidani (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Please don't forget to notify NMMNG of this thread.-- Deepfriedokra 06:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I must be dim: where, exactly, is the personal attack? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, I read the thread numerous times, wondering if the wrong link had been posted. Obviously the two participants knew who they were talking about, but I don't see any way that anybody else reading that thread could figure out that Nishidani was being referred to. If there's absolutely no mention of who the discussion is about, can there be a violation of WP:NPA? and if no one is identified, and insufficient hints have been dropped, how can there be outing? I've certainly have seen Nishidani's name many times before, but there was nothing on that thread which said to me "This is about Nishidani", and nothing there that I could identify as a "partial outing".

I think that Nishidani is going to have to explain this in more detail, but if you have to explain a personal attack and a "partial outing" in detail in order to have outsiders recognize them for what you say they are, how valid can those descriptions actually be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the verb would be "implying". Need clarification on the outing thing as well.-- Deepfriedokra 06:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Right: "I imply, you infer." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

We're here to write articles, not to pursue a grievance - consistently lost in arbitration- over several years to then retire in protest, and only come back when there is an opportunity to niggle at one's perceived (anti-Semitic) adversary. This is a matter of memory and context.NMMGG's innuendoes re my 'antisemitism' are legion, so I'll resist the temptation to list them per WP:TLDR.Bref

• 2013
• Advice Requested 2015

NMMGG has retired in protest from wikipedia and doesn’t edit it. He comes back every several months to harp on his theme, that wikipedia protects antisemites,(once mounting an attack page on me apropos that thesis) and I am, in this regard, a major problem. He now jumps at the quote SJ uses to divagate on his hobby horse.

• (a) "Jews must pass my test if they want my sympathy" quote.

This is an extremely malicious mischaracterization of the quote on Sir Joseph’s page. (note that quote should be linked. Ripping it out of the explanatory context in which it is embedded blinds the reader to its real or intended meaning. Sir Joseph should be asked to link that statement).

• (b) 'It seems like both the style and favorite topic of the guy who once said that Purim is a celebration of genocide.'

NMMGG made a case against me re Purim in 2013, and it apparently still rankles that, with the evidence there showing ‘my’ remark reflected mainstream scholarship, he lost it and got a sanction.

Where did I state I came from Australia? Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

But the quote is not attributed, how is someone to know that it is yours? And how is "mischaracterizing" a quote a personal attack on you, as opposed to... a mischaracterization of a quote? And per Purim: do you somehow think that everyone on Wikipedia is keeping track of your disputes, and that the mention of "Purim as genocide" is going to automatically be recognized as a reference to you? And again, how is a mischaracterization of something that you said -- if it is a mischaracterization -- a personal attack? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just so totally out of the loop that I can't see the violations you suggest, and an admin intimately familiar with every minute aspect of your editing and dispute history will feel differently, but I'm just not seeing any substance here. 07:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the premise is dicey: I Nishidani will immediately recognize that this is a personal slight against me, but it is not a personal attack in wiki terms because no one else will catch the allusions? Not that all this irks me. I regard it as the standard inability to read carefully what is written, and what it means. That annoys me.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry: could you please clarify who you are referring to when you write "the standard inability to read carefully what is written, and what it means"? And if "all this" doesn't "irk" you, why then did you file an AN/I report about it? That doesn't seem to track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The ability to read carefully and paraphrase neutrally what sources state is an integral part of our encyclopedic endeavor.This is a classic example of failure by contributing editors to do this, albeit on a talk page. To abandon wikipedia only return to make snippy comments offloading ancient grudges is pointless shitstirring.

I write (a) this, arguing that coherence in terms of a universal principle of human dignity must be the basic principle governing sensitivity to prejudice.

This is excerpted, shorn of its logical principle, to produce a quote specifying one instance of violating a universal principle.

(b ) Anyone who complains of anti-Semitism, while silently ignoring the massive daily evidence of the humiliations, harassment and violence dealt out on a systematic basis in Gaza and the West Bank, is ranting hollowly to my ear.

(c) That in turn is construed as my insinuating that

"Jews must pass my test if they want my sympathy"

This is typical of what the press, (notably in the Corbyn case) does in spinning an otherwise sensible concept, to make out its author bears some ethnic enmity. Editors here should not be playing POV games. I find the last comment ‘disturbing’. A statement on the principle of human rights is spun as an attack on 'Jews'.

In stating:

As long as some admins protect these people (perhaps mistakenly thinking they're supporting anti-Zionists, but at this point I doubt it), nothing will change. There needs to be some media attention and then outside pressure for anything to change here. </blockquote

NMMGG is airing the idea that wikipedia’s handling of anti-semitism, and its putative ‘protection’ of people like me, will only change if ‘outside pressure’ from the media noting the issue makes a fuss of it, to force a change. That is what Framgate is all about, and I read it in that context. People who leave wiki, with a grudge, don't edit, come back only to vent their rancor, and augur that media pressure force WP to intervene to fix the ostensible cause of their grievance, should be warned to do what they were warned earlier to do, lay off from this opportunistic niggling to create yet one more 'scandal'.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

And yet this putative scandal-mongering, deeply encoded, would have simply sat on a user's talk page, one with 136 watchers, unseen by the vast majority of Wikipedians, or seen and not understood, if you hadn't brought it to one of the highest profile pages on Wikipedia, with 7,703 watchers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The Streisand effect? Most AE cases against me, in retrospect, are examples of this genre. Two or three times a year, having parsed minutely every remark I've made to ferret out a harsh word ('nonsense','silly' 'crap', 'oh, for fuck's sake' mostly in the face of stonewalling reverters) a complaint has been made my behavior conduces to a 'toxic' atmosphere as Shrike puts it, that I am a congenital denigrator. All this simply because I am writing up the Palestinian side of the Israeli occupation. It's not that those who make these complaints do any significant page construction: they revert, add tidbits, tweak for, mainly a national POV. These things, endless cross-page rumour-mongering unfortunately go into the record, and, if you don't react (as mostly I do not, to insults like the characterizations of me on this thread) gradually admins retain a passing sense of 'there's no smoke without fire', and will, at some point, throw the book at me. If you reread the thread I cite, it is a fishing expedition, obviously, using the technique of heckling with smears within eyeshot of the target, hoping to get them to respond there'. It is a standard technique for people who have no evidence, but entertain a private deep suspicion there's something fishy, hidden, off-the-known record in another person's otherwise rational attitudes, and to prove one's suspicion is spot on, one prods, stirs, probes, elicits, niggles, snipes in the ensuing exchange, in order to get the targeted person to blow his/her cool, and say something recklessly. Then 'gotcha!' and sdtraight to AE/ANI. I've watched it for over a decade. Merton called this a self-fulfilling prophetic mode, and I think it within my rights to ask admins to to tell non-performing wiki kibitizers to desist from playing these petty but clearly disruptive baiting games.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please indicate which of the edits you reference refer to something occurring over the last year? I saw a couple going back to 2015, but what is happening now?-- Deepfriedokra 08:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

NMMGG essentially has not edited over the last year.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To editor Beyond My Ken: The talk page discussion refers to a quotation at the top of the talk page, of which the original can be found in seconds using the search facility. So it is not correct to say that nobody would know who it was about. Most regulars would correctly guess even before checking, as I did. Most regulars would also read it as a personal attack that was intended to be an implication of anti-semitism. I was thinking of bringing up this incident myself, not least because the talk page owner recently narrowly escaped a block over a similar personal attack. In that case the attacked user was named, but frankly I can't see the distinction between attacking a named person and attacking a person whose identity is trivial to determine (which, irrelevantly, is how libel laws in most countries operate too). Zero^talk 12:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but "You are an idiot" is a personal attack, "What you said is idiotic" isn't. "You are an anti-semite" is a personal attack, "Your views are anti-semitic" is not, and even less so when one has to go searching (no matter how "trivial") to find out who "you" is.

I think you overestimate how many people among the "regulars" keep track of any ongoing disputes between the editors involved, unless by "regulars" you don't mean "regular editors of Wikipedia" but "regular participants in Israel-Palestine editing." In determining what is and isn't a personal attack, one should, I think, use a "reasonable person" standard, but you seem to be defining a "person" as someone who holds specialized knowledge, not simply a "reasonable editor of Wikipedia", but a "reasonable editor of the Israel-Palestine subject area" (if there is such a thing). Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani is saying "This is fundamental to civilization, as Hillel the Elder understood in his statement at Shabbath folio:31a, 'What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation.'" This doesn't have anything to do with the topic of conversation. In this instance Nishidani is not addressing the topic of Zionism. Invoking the religious precept spoken by "Hillel the Elder" implicates the religion. This is apart from politics, the ostensible topic of the discussion. Nishidani wanders across an imaginary line separating religion and politics when they say "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow". That is Torah as opposed to Zionism. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To editor Beyond My Ken: Since an anti-semite is exactly someone who holds anti-semitic views (look in a dictionary), your claim that "your views are anti-semitic" is not a personal attack has no logical leg to stand on. The vast majority of "reasonable people" would take it as a personal insult and they would be right. What are you doing defending the indefensible? Zero^talk 18:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A person cannot change their being, they are always themselves, no matter what, but they can change their views, and many people do. I am not "defending the indefensible" (which by your standard would be a personal attack) I am pointing out that a person's views are not the person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• This has too long roots for me, and looking for past diffs is very exhausting at this time of night. I'm however pinging @El C: who has dealt with Sir Joseph's talkpage quotes and discussion of them before. I'm also going to alert Sir Joseph, who is surely involved in the dialogue he takes part in on his page. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

• Though not as egregious as the quote I removed, I find Sir Joseph's use of quotations, meant to depict his editorial opponents in a bad light, to be generally inappropriate and too adversarial. Especially, seeing that this is an editor who has been sanctioned for ARBPIA violations multiple times. If anything, they should aim to come across as more understated on this highly contentious front. El_C 19:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

that's an admirable position to take, @El C:. Are you going to enforce the same standard on the OP's own user page, where he features a similarly context-less quote (nocal100's) meant to depict his editorial opponents in a bad light? You are of course aware that the OP is also an editor who has been sanctioned for ARBPIA violations multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk • contribs)

• What is wrong with that quote? I am not putting any words into Nishidani's mouth. He is saying that I am responsible for Israel and that I can't complain about antisemitism in my neighborhood until I do something about Israel. That seems to be the gist of his quote. Is there anything wrong with highlighting that viewpoint? I also have no control over what NMMNG says on my page, so I'm not sure what else to do here. I do find it interesting though that Nishidani is bringing an action considering that he has been warned repeatedly by admins about his conduct. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also, I would just like to add, that yes, I wouldn't be walking around proud calling Purim a genocide as you do. Purim celebrates self-defense. I am not sure how a holiday where people were saved from destruction translates into genocide gets into your books, but that goes into your known biases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Invoking Purim is once again invoking religion, also known as Judaism. A discussion of Zionism is unlikely to involve events of millennia ago. Invoking Purim or Hillel the Elder in an argument about Zionism is off-topic and it crosses an invisible line between religion and politics. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

?Zionism is the secular reenactment of a biblical story, and, the consensus of scholarship states, since 1967 religious Zionism, integral to that project from the outset, has gained a rising ascendencyNishidani (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Such no-context excerpts as part of inter-editorial disputes which pertain to ARBPIA, contribute to a toxic environment in this very contentious area. That is the problem. El_C 19:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nishidani himself posted the link [188] to his full quote, where he himself said the same thing, if you don't care about what is going on in Israel then it rings hollow. As you know from my talk page's big US flag, I live in the US and unless you think I have dual allegiance, I have no say on what goes on in Israel. So the quote on my page is in context, similar to other quotes on all the other pages on talk pages throughout Wikipedia. My quote says exactly what he means, that I can't complain about antisemitism in my community. (Have you looked at his talk page?) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• In any event, I'm not sure what @Nishidani: is asking for here against NMMNG. Can he clarify? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I care about what is going on in Israel — I also care about what is going on on Wikipedia, which is what this is about. Yes, I've seen their talk page. I'm not sure to what extent there is something inappropriate there due to the TLDR-nature of that piece. At a glance, it does not seem to invoke inter-editorial disputes specifically, unless I'm missing something. Again, if there are issues that pertain to racism, antisemitism or Holocaust denial, you are free to bring those up to review here. I think you will find that we take those concerns very seriously. El_C 19:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Besides his TLDR on top, if you continue his antisemitism thread, he says that Jews worldwide are responsible for Israel's actions, and that if a Jew in London is spat upon by someone in London we need to recognize that an Arab is spat upon by a Jew in Israel. And he goes further. I do recall some Representative in the US getting in trouble for saying something similar to that. I don't live in Israel and have no control over what Israel does, so that quote on my talk page is on context of his thinking and a pretty bad thinking. He seems to confuse ethnicity, religion and nation a bit in his screed. If a Jew is spat on in London by some anti-Semite, they do well to seek redress and punitive costs; but if that person, on hearing that Christian priests are customarily spat on in Jerusalem by Haredi passers-by, can't make the connection between what befell them, and what befalls non-Jews, then the outrage is not grounded in a universal moral sensibility: it is personal, and, often, ethnic. You seem to throw around toxicity a bit, but I'm not the right target for that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

he says that Jews worldwide are responsible for Israel's actions

I only noticed this now, since hitherto I was looking for neutral input. I nowhere state such an absurdity (there is, not withstanding the ranting nonsense asserting Zionism and Jewishness are interchangeable, no intrinsic connection between being Jewish and Israel). Strike it please. Most of this guttersniping comes from an unfamiliarity with the normal processes of logical thinking.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Regardless, @El C: this is off topic, since Nishidani did not open this thread to discuss the quote, as he stated in the opening sentence he is fine with the sentence being on my talk page. So the only one here making a deal out of it is you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe so, but this incident would not exist had it not been for its aforementioned display — ARBPIA trouble that we could have done without. El_C 23:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• More importantly since we're way off-topic here, Nishidani continues to refer to the whole Labour antisemitism issue as a smear campaign, when I don't think even Corbyn himself will do that. Corbyn has admitted that there are issues and he said that Labour is taking steps to deal with antisemitism in the Labour party, but Nishidani says it's all a smear. The UK Labour Party has a problem with a massive persistent press campaign asserting, contrafactually, that, compared to all other political parties, it uniquely has an 'antisemitic' problem. this challenges widestream RS, including Guardian, NYtimes, BBC, CNN, etc. Further, Nishidani continues to say "impeccable scholarly works, such as Mearsheimer and Walt's 2007 book" when that book has been widely condemned as antisemitic by many scholars. To claim that it is impeccable is ludicrous. I know that Nishidani usually gets a wide berth because he usually writes a huge wall of text, but he edits with a huge bias and it does need to stop. It's one thing to be biased on a talk page, but not on the mainspace, (especially when you say you're retired half a dozen times). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nishidani has a habit of putting down his fellow editors, making denigrating comments about them, doubting their logical faculties, general competence and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, using strong language (to say the least). This has been pointed out to him many times, and objected to. Nishidani continues this behavior unchanged. It is time the community put a stop to this behavior, and this lame attempt to silence his opponents should backfire on him. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• • ...and No More Mr Nice Guy has a long, looooooong history of trying to paint Nishidani as an anti−Semite, (ie. a racist). Debresser: I hope you remember Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Debresser: you called me and Nishidani for "anti-Jewish" (and in my part of the world that is the same as being a racist), I asked you to withdraw it and apologise, or show how I was anti-Jewish. You did neither, and you know how that ended.
  • I think this report should have been filed at AE, too. I thought of doing that myself, but to do that the editor in question has to be alerted in the last year (?) (AFAIK!...it is rather difficult to keep up with the rules). Anyway, I have now alerted NMMNG.
  • What I think is, well, nasty, about this last spat, is that NMMNG basically said he has retired (he has less than 50 edits this last year), well ok. But then he return solely to spread these poisonous allegation about an editor. (And I would guess 100% of the editors in the I/P area who sees this knows exactly who they were talking about: this has been going on for years.) (Not that I'm impressed with Sir Joseph's behaviour, either). So is this what we have to look forward to: retired editors returning once or twice a year in order to spread some shit around the IP area? How fun that will be</sarcasm> Huldra (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Huldra, Where would we be if people who retire never come back to edit?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) .
      • User:Sir Joseph, of course retired editors "in good standing" are welcome back....but the same rules/question should apply to them, as to any other editor; namely: Are they here to write an encyclopaedia? ..or are they here for the disruption? What is the "signal/noice" ratio? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• I totally agree with User:Debresser assessment Nishidani has a long history of attacking other editors he could be nicest person if you agree with his POV but if you oppose it he will create a toxic atmosphere that hinders a collegial editing. --Shrike (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Instant reverts with no comprehensible talk page comment or edit summary is 'collegial'? Yawn. As to SJ's query. :::Nothing punitive. If SJ likes the quote as ddamning proof of something evil, he should be required to link it on his page so that readers know exactly the context in which it (utterly non controversial though it be) was said. As to NMMGG he should be warned that Wikipedia is a worksite, not an opportunity to voice personal grievances or come back only to divagate on his opinions about another editor.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Shrike said it best. This is quickly becoming a WP:Boomerang and, IMHO, probably should result in some actions toward Nishidani. Buffs (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Shrike, as per his custom, simply repeated what Debresser wrote, so give credit where credit is due. The stock claim that I have a long history of making personal attacks on other editors is nonsense. There is a long history of a group of editors repeatedly complaining at AE/ANI I personalize disputes, their way of phrasing the fact that I have a long history of demanding that editors explain their repetitive reverting in rational terms, on policy grounds, asking them to read the sources they excise, and, above all, asking them to read up on the topics they edit. That pattern is, for them, tantamount to a personal attack, and proof of antisemitism.Nishidani (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

So, since I agree with his assessment above, my opinion is "tantamount to a personal attack, and proof of antisemitism"? That's an absurd conclusion. If that's your contention, then, at this point, I see nothing left to say by to call for you to be blocked. If you feel everyone is attacking you, "everyone" isn't the problem in the equation. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you misread. Nishidani's editing pattern (demanding rational explanations on policy grounds, asking to read sources before removing them, asking to read more) is, to them (a group of editors), tantamount to a personal attack, and proof of antisemitism. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a terrible thing to say and shows how ignorant you are of his editing style. You can always visit AE and see how many times he was warned for his civility, to call people out on bad faith attacks is disgusting. Perhaps read up on his "editing pattern" as you call it. Or, don't insert yourself into disputes you know nothing about that spans more than one week of edits.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you are addressing me, Sir Joseph, I was trying to paraphrase/explain what Nishidani had written and was subsequently misunderstood (in my opinion) by Buffs. I wasn't trying to "say" anything. You are, of course, welcome to assess my ignorance as you see fit, but in my own view I am unduly familiar with Nishidani's editing style as I am with yours. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, The thread is a great example of his failure to WP:AGF that even here he continues his pattern of accusing other editors of having "national pov" and he was banned in the past exactly for the same problems(incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith) nothing have changed as years have passed --Shrike (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Pleass reread the thread, Shrike. I described a situation, until editors like yourself and Debresser personalized this with non-AGF comments about their perceived Nishidani problem, with the usual template profile of putative traits. It is a personal attack to repeatedly intervene, every time I am mentioned, with the standard boilerplate about this 'Nishidani,' whose ostensible 'violent denigration, contempt, refusal of AGF,' apparently flaring 24/7 over 13 years and through 74,000 edits has led to a handful of sanctions, and several reversals of blocks imposed through misreading by admins.

I could cite the same phrasing from half a dozen cases or threads where I have been reported, or challenged and the report has been thrown out. It is always the same tripe, based on a few sanctions over 13 years. It is part of a reflex smear Nishidani habit some of you have adopted. Now, could someone close this with the correct warning. I.e. Wikipedia is not a venue for inactive editors to drop back in to pursue some fixation they have with active editors, and if one wants to showcase a quotation which might lead rise to misunderstandings, link the quotation with a diff, so that readers may understand the context in which it was said. I did this with the NoCal sockmaster quote on my page (alluded to by the sock posting above). I expect the same treatment here.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard to pull anything useful out of that wall of text, Nishidani. I'm not smearing anyone. I'm evaluating based on the evidence presented. AGF does not appear to be present in your remarks and I find Shrike's assessment and others compelling. Buffs (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by Jgriffy98

Jgriffy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [189]. The user is a recidivist, others told him/her that he/she will likely got indeffed, see e.g. [190]. Editor was warned, but did not repent, see [191]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jgriffy98 has a very serious civility problem. [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] Zero^talk 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to commit to being more civil with my fellow editors. I do not wish to communicate with or be contacted by Tgeorgescu. He has harassed me several times already and is actively trying to get my account banned. I would like for him to leave me alone and stop his harassment. He carefully monitors my behavior so he can report me every chance he can get. Tgeorgescu and I do not have a good standing with each other, and it's time for him to leave me alone. Again, I am willing to commit to being more civil and communicating better with my fellow editors, but I need Tgeorgescu to cease his harassment. He never contributes anything meaningful to my conversations with other editors, and I feel like he's deliberately trying to get under my skin to provoke a reaction from me. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

And surely you could provide evidence of such harassment... otherwise you just made it worse for yourself. Do note that you were not only uncivil towards me, but also towards other editors, lambasting us all (including Wikipedia policies and guidelines) of being bent to further misinformation, see e.g. [199]. As I wrote at User:Tgeorgescu#A word for newbies which I seem to be in conflict with, I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you. And it seems that you're doing a pretty good job at it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that Jgriffy did not assume good faith and essentially accused A Parrot of lying about having read a source after it contradicted what Jgriffy wanted it to say [200].--Ermenrich (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

User Harassment

I have been harrassed several times by an editor named Tgeorgescu, and I would like for him/her to leave me alone. I have warned him several times not to communicate with me, as the two of us have a bad standing with each other. We have both used personal attacks against each other in the past, so I have been trying to avoid any interaction with him. Tgeorgescu seems to just randomly appear during a conversation I'm having with another editor, even though I have warned him not to message me. When he does interfere with a conversation I'm having with another editor, he never contributes anything to the conversation, and instead makes passive aggressive and smartass remarks. I feel like he's doing this just to get under my skin. Again, I do not want to interact with Tgeorgescu, yet he continually shows up out of nowhere to criticize me. I was considering reporting him before, but decided it wasn't worth my time. Seeing as how he just reported me for "attacking" him, I have changed my mind. How can I get Tgeorgescu to leave me alone? Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

He has continuously monitored my behavior everytime I make an edit or engage with a discussion with another editor, and reports me for violation every chance he can get. I feel like he's deliberately trying to get under my skin in order to provoke a reaction, and he's actively trying to get my account banned. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgriffy98 (talk • contribs)

Please link to diffs of examples of this harassment. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are involved in editing disputes on exactly one article, The Exodus, which Tgeorgescu has been editing for longer than your account has been registered. You can ask him to avoid your talk page, but you don't get to banish him the article or related discussions. And the conversation here, honestly I'm surprised you weren't blocked right then and there. I am considering it. If you can't promise to engage with other editors in a collegial fashion, this is not the website for you. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I don't want this to be taken as defense of Jgriffy, I read Tgeorgescu's user page to see what prompted such vitriol from him... and what I found was equally vitriolic, albeit lacking profanity. If your basic complaint about my edits is "your professor ran over my dogma", you are completely pitiful and pathetic. We are unapologetically in favor of the academic consensus, so you don't belong here. As Neil Asher Silberman stated, "what we're doing is just continuing a struggle a scholarly struggle that's been going on for a hundred years the boundary just now happens to be in the story of the Israelites and the Israelite Kingdom and it's moving forward slowly to separate religious literature and spirituality from what we call history. The scientific method and the historical method do not hate religion. There is no hate of ants required in order to crush ants nests with a bulldozer. Seems like a rather blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC. Seth Kellerman (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's amazing how many users seem to think that civility is a contingent or bilateral responsibility: Once you perceive that someone has crossed a line with you, the brakes come off and you can be as rude as you like to them. That's not how it works here. I asked this user to remove or strike their personal attacks, and they blew it off. I see no commitment to civility here, or inclination to improve. Bovlb (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Jgriffy98 just threw nothing but tantrums after multiple editors rejected his arguments. The user can't maintain civility for very long, obviously. Jgriffy98 is basically WP:NOTHERE, and even preferred to be blocked as he states. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bovlb: I asked him/her to present evidence of the harassment. I could equally claim that I was harassed by Barrack Obama, but since I have no evidence for it, why should you believe me? Presenting evidence of harassment shouldn't be too complicated, seen https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=tgeorgescu&users=jgriffy98&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

In light of "You seem like a loudmouth bitch, and I really don't want your help. Just go fuck yourself.", "It seems like the only thing you people care about is my attitude and cursing. It's not my fault you're a sensitive woose." and "Stop trying to start shit, you know-it-all punk.", all in the last ten minutes, I've given Jgriffy98 a brief break from Wikipedia. Any more of this and the next one is indefinite. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

31 hours? Really? I'm surprised and very disappointed, I've seen newly registered users get blocked indefinitely for a lot less behavioral issues. And what's even more surprising, that it took this long to block an obvious WP:NOTHERE case. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, we don't just indef people at the drop of a hat. If Jgriffy98 starts up again causing problems, then they'll be promptly be reblocked, and if they express a willingness to work within our rules then they're welcome to carry on. I'm not going to immediately indef an editor who's been active for almost a year and virtually all of whose mainspace edits appear to have been an attempt to edit constructively, even if they weren't all policy-compliant, without giving them a chance to prove themselves. (FWIW, a 31 hour block without the usual four warnings is considerably harsher than what someone in this situation would normally receive.) ‑ Iridescent 20:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Nuisance IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

94.204.122.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly spamming their belief that the new SPA UmbraImpossible is a sock, repeatedly posting the accusation to the user's userpage and to Talk:Andy Ngo. While I have my concerns with UmbraImpossible (notably, their refusal to comply with the Arbcom Remediations active on the page on the grounds they can't see them) - I would prefer not to WP:BITE a newcomer and would rather WP:AGF - meanwhile the IP is explicitly disruptive. A little help please. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Accusing someone of sockpuppetry without providing a shred of evidence is a personal attack. Doing it repeatedly after being asked multiple times by multiple editors to stop is harassment. Accordingly, the IP has been blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter that an hour after they were blocked for calling another account a sock, that account was blocked as a sock? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Ivanvector's block of the IP was well-deserved. As it happens, the IP is operated by an LTA. I would have CU-blocked if Ivanvector hadn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats on Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can you please block User:91.154.176.74 he's giving off threats in Wikipedia and is defaming Bobby Madden see AbhiMukh97^{(Speak)(Contribs)} 08:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chronic disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anthony22 regularly makes numerous stylistic and 'grammatical' edits to pages to negative effect. There are editors who, from time to time, examine his edits. When this is done, his edits are most often reverted. Individual 'diffs' aren't the best tool to see his behavior. The 100 most recent edits of the O.J. Simpson murder case are illustrative. Anthony22 made numerous, rapid, stylistic edits to the page. This is too many edits in too little time to be a careful reading and improvement. It's compulsive behavior—very unproductive compulsive behavior. Please notice that NEDOCHAN took the time to revert many of them. Next, please refer to this conversation about Anthony22 on NEDOCHAN's Talk page: it's an example of how Anthony22's compulsive editing wastes other editors' time. Finally, please examine Anthony22's editing history. This behavior has been going on for years. He uses up useful editors' time, and Wikpedia's 'oxygen.' IMO, this needs to stop. Tapered (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

For clarity we are talking about these 43 edits in a row (and one revert from another editor). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221:My bad. Can I remove this section? Tapered (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you want it archived? I wasn't challenging you on anything. Just making it easy for others to look at precisely the edits that triggered this report. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

For interested parties, User talk:Anthony22 provides insight into the years-long history of this issue. I won't try to summarize that here, but I'll say that I'm one of perhaps eight experienced editors who have made similar complaints over the years. I strongly feel that the community should divert Anthony22 into areas better suited to his skill set, since he refuses to make that transition voluntarily. He is a net negative in the copy editing area. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I also concur with the word "compulsive" here. I have refrained from using it, but it clearly applies in my opinion and has long been how I interpreted Anthony22's editing behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not one of the eight, but I gave Anthony22 a warning six weeks ago, but felt I was being harsh as they are obviously only trying to do good, albeit sometimes not very successfully. It's difficult to know what's best when you see an editor who makes so many mistakes with such good intentions. For now, I've left a note on their talkpage trying to explain the problem they created on the Charles Lindbergh article, and maybe I'll get a positive response. Is anyone here able to explain patiently to them why 43 consecutive edits to O. J. Simpson murder case causes problems for other editors? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Tapered—please pick one diff and bring it to our attention. I would be interested to see a diff of an edit by Anthony22 that you find particularly problematic. I am not accepting of the notion that "[i]ndividual 'diffs' aren't the best tool to see his behavior." Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing is Bus Stop that this has been going on for years. What about this as an eg? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=911471345

A cursory look through Anthony's edit history, the JFK page, Marilyn Monroe, his talk page, will show that it's a chronic issue of pointless wordsmithing and /or plain errors being introduced en masse to featured articles. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEONING

NEDOCHAN—I agree that the provided edit did not improve the sentence that it was intended to improve but in my evaluation that misstep was minor. This is the sort of thing that can be addressed by dialogue rather than by steps taken to forcibly curtail their editing ability. For instance I would simply present the argument on their Talk page that the word "both" is an important part of that sentence and therefore in my opinion warrants placement at the beginning of the sentence. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Bus stop, the point people are making here is that it is a chronic, long-term issue, and that previous attempts to address this have failed. Therefore addressing one specific issue with one specific edit will be unhelpful, and is completely beside the point. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Bus stop, are you even aware of what you just did? You were "not accepting of the notion" of a pattern, insisting on a single diff, which you then rejected as a minor thing, which was of course true because it was a single diff. You engineered the conversation to ensure your predetermined desired outcome. Don't do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC) I'd say a purpose of diffs is to allow onlookers to evaluate a case. We don't want a case to be decided on the basis of a handful of complainants. I think we should want wider input and opinions. I'd say those alleging a problematic editing pattern should provide a sufficient number of diffs to convince onlookers that the alleged problem exists, be that 10 diffs or 20 diffs or more. It should be easy for onlookers to evaluate the alleged problem. The present suggestion is that an onlooker such as myself should peruse a range of edits. I don't think that is acceptable. Diffs should be specific. At the top of this page I find "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Hang on a second. You asked the editors who are a bit fed up with this editor's continual, time-consuming and bad editing to come up with an example. I did so and your response was based on its being one example. Mandruss is absolutely right. Not a good response. As said earlier, if you'd like lots of examples just spend 5 minutes reviewing his edits and talk page. Seems a bit pointless asking us to post links. Take a look. Form your opinion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC) NEDOCHAN—the complaint was brought by Tapered. I do not think the burden is on me to figure out what "Tapered" is complaining about. I looked at a dozen edits by "Anthony22". It is not super-obvious to me that there is a problem. "Tapered" is writing "The 100 most recent edits of the O.J. Simpson murder case are illustrative." Are every one of those problematic? Probably not. How am I supposed to know which ones "Tapered" thinks are problematic and which ones "Tapered" thinks are OK? And why should I go through 100 edits? Wouldn't the burden logically be on the one filing the complaint to highlight specific edits deemed to be problematic? I'm trying to give "Anthony22" a fair break. We need evidence. It should be specific, in the form of specific diffs. Please present as many as necessary to illustrate your point. It says at the top of this page "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Now your story changes. You said right here please pick one diff and bring it to our attention. That was done per your request, and now it's a sufficient number of diffs to convince onlookers that the alleged problem exists. Could you please decide on a position and stop moving goalposts? I have already said that insight is available on Anthony22's talk page; have you bothered to take a fair look at that already-existent source of information for your answers? I doubt that meeting your demand for more diffs would satisfy you; if there were a hundred diffs you would simply argue endlessly about whether this or that diff is really problematic and to what degree. The important point is that more than a handful of established editors, acting independently and in good faith, have perceived a problem with Anthony22's copy editing spanning a period of years, and that the multiple complaints have yielded no improvement. That means something. This is not a courtroom, and you are not a defense attorney. You are not making a constructive contribution to this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Someguy1221—sorry to bother you. I'm sure you have other things to do. If User:Tapered doesn't return to the conversation in a reasonable amount of time I think this section should be closed. Their last statement was "Can I remove this section?" You asked them if they wanted it archived, and they didn't respond. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC) No, that isn't how this works. The interaction you refer to occurred when those two editors were the only ones in the discussion, before four other editors had joined it. You don't get to try to defeat a complaint by shutting down the discussion on some contrived technicality, and it shows bad faith to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC) I get what is concerning about the 43 edits referred to in the original post. Aside from the annoyance of doing it as 43 tiny edits, it amounts to using more words to convey the same amount of information. While I have an opinion on that, it's a style issue, and does not obviously require administrative attention. I assume the complaint is that Anthony22 A) does this sort of thing habitually; B) is resistant to reasonable efforts to curb it; and C) should expect this type of edit-storm to be controversial, whether because he is frequently reverted, or because there is a clear consensus against his style. It also did not escape notice that many of the warnings on Anthony22's talk page regarded more than mere style issues. But to be honest, I didn't feel like trawling through Anthony22's mess of a talk page looking for solid evidence. I didn't feel like looking into each complaint to see exactly what the context was. If someone else goes to the bother of making a list of diffs/incidents alleging to demonstrate an intractable behavioral problem, I'll take a look. Though I'll agree with Bus stop that if no such thing appears to be forthcoming, and no one else appears interested in acting on this complaint, it should be closed soon. I'd say a day, two days max. Nothing stopping Tapered or someone else from coming back with a better complaint in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The only collection of diffs strong enough to even stand a chance of a ban from copy editing would be a comprehensive collection showing pretty much every bad edit for the past 5 years. I don't think any sane editor is going to devote the required 10+ hours tediously amassing such a collection, especially given the lack of any guarantee that their effort wouldn't be totally wasted. That fairly sums up the chronic dysfunction of this page, and I ask myself why I bothered. But I've reduced the frequency of that mistake to about once a year, so that's progress. I'm out. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Still not sure how to proceed with this and why there is such reluctance simply to look at the edit history of the editor. That, coupled with a quick read of the talk page, shows the situation clearly. Anyway- here is a recent selection- these are just the most recent. A particularly strong example is the Prostitution page, where Anthony has decided to add 'call girl, street walker, whore, harlot' one-by-one, seemingly just thinking up words. He also states models and prostitutes are the same, with a nifty bit of OR. And then throws in 'youth' as an essential component of being a sex worker. He then goes on to ignore an infobox and attest to the legality of a school shooting. Anyway here goes:1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 Is nine consecutive pointless and/or offensive edits in the last 24 hrs enough, or shall I just post separate links to the 1000s of others to demonstrate what was originally termed 'chronic disruptive editing'? And if you say that we should talk to the editor about it, look at his talk page. We have.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Look at how many of the edits I have highlighted have already been reverted and perhaps consider that the complaint that Anthony22 is wasting time might have some validity. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC) User:Mandruss is correct, and this is a problem. I've seen other editors who have poor writing skills yet paradoxically believe the opposite, and try to "help" Wikipedia by copyediting articles. No one edit is particularly disruptive, and they seem to mean well, yet pretty much every edit they make makes Wikipedia slightly worse. I'm not sure what should be done here; banning seems heavy-handed but some sort of restriction on copyediting would be helpful. Jayjg (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Where is User:Tapered? This thread can be closed and reopened (after taking a week breather from it) by any editor so inclined. User:Tapered is not taking responsibility for what they've initiated. They said "Can I remove this section?"[201] Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Bus stop. Please note that although Tapered began the process they did so in collaboration with me. I have provided an additional 9 diffs above to go with the first. Could you at least look at those?NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Bus stop, please review the post to you by Mandruss of 01:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC). User:Tapered is not required here, the section doesn't need to be closed or reopened, and no "week breather" is required. Your own contributions here are moving from unhelpful to disruptive. Jayjg (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC) To clarify, I think what Bus Stop is trying to say is that Tapered seems to want to withdraw his allegation against Anthony, and if he does then it doesn’t make sense to continue digging around for ways to attack this user unless there’s a specific issue that someone else independently of Tapered has with him. That being said, I don’t think there’s a need for that. Tapered’s last comment was ambiguous and there’s nothing wrong with hashing out the issue while we are here. My current concern is less about the quality of the edits and more about the lack of talk page interaction before running to ANI. Has anyone tried to ask this user why he isn’t discussing these issues given how frequently they crop up? If he isn’t willing to talk to other users, that could be a competence issue by itself, even if it’s not intentionally disruptive. Michepman (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC) The short answer is yes. And the evidence is on the user's talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC) In addition, the editor has been invited twice over the last 3 days to join this conversation, but hasn't, despite continuing to edit. A short block may be required to get the editor's attention, and to have them focus on the issues people are raising on the editor's talk page (and here). Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Interesting. I’ll admit, I find the user’s talk page to be intricate and not easy to decipher, so I will take your word for it that he has been contacted and has not agreed to discuss this with anyone. Since he seems to be ignoring the WP:ANI thread and talk page contents, I don’t think there are too many other avenues left to get his attention. Some of his contributions that I’ve reviewed might actually be good work, but others are not and his unwillingness to engage in discussion is a problem across the board. I don’t know if there’s a rule that says someone can be blocked for refusing to collaborate and leaving messes for other editors. I assume that there is, but I don’t know the specifics. Either way, his behavior doesn’t seem reasonable. Michepman (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC) correction, I just reviewed the time stamps on his talk page. It looks like his last edit was actually an hour *before* he was notified of the thread. If that’s the case, it isn’t fair for me to conclude that he won’t participate in this discussion since he hasn’t had a chance to do so. I think we should wait before doing anything else to give him a chance to stop by and give his side of the story. Michepman (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) @Michepman: Anthony22 was first informed of this thread on 04:30, 25 August 2019. He's made dozens of edits since then; he even made an edit to his Talk: page after the notice. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC) Ah, and I see Bus stop has now coached him on how to placate the people here, and get through this process unscathed. No advice on how to improve his editing, mind you, just advice on how to "beat the rap". Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC) To clarify, I was referring to this message left on his talk page by User:Jayjg today, linking to this thread in particular. The message above was from two days ago and was not really specific compared to the one left by User:Jayjg today. I'm assuming good faith that he didn't see the first message from two days ago (or else didn't understand what it meant), and I'll also assume good faith that User:Bus stop is trying to encourage Anthony to engage with the community. I think it is important for Anthony to engage if he is planning to edit here, especially if he is going to edit in hot button areas like the Marjory Stoneman high school shooting. An editor that actively refuses to talk to anyone else even when making controversial changes is going to create a lot of work for others to clean up. Just my 2 cents... Michepman (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC) If you were familiar with the long history here, you would know that Anythony22's tendency is to run from criticism. On 13 June 2018, after a week of complaints on his talk page from six (6) experienced editors, he started a wikibreak that lasted until 1 February 2019. He really, really hates engaging with other editors, for example avoiding article talk whenever possible (0.7% of his edits have been in the Talk namespace). His comfort zone is in being left alone to work in isolation instead of as part of the editing community. To any reasonable observer, this is a far more likely explanation than any other for his absence in this discussion, and it's one of the things that might already be understood if people took the time to look at the history on his talk page. Hence my word "insight". This points to another serious flaw in the current ANI system – the implicit assumption that editors completely new to the issue can be better judges of it than those who have dealt with it firsthand for years, based on the little bits of "evidence" that the latter have time to produce, simply because the former frequent ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC) OK, it took me a bit to unravel what you said about a serious flaw in ANI, but I think I understand now, and if I do, I think I disagree somewhat. I do not think that there is an "implicit assumption" that AN/I regulars are better equipped to understand and deal with a situation than the people who have experienced it first hand are - although that may appear to be the case. What I believe you're actually seeing is that in a system which functions via WP:CONSENSUS, if the people on the front lines (who know the problems in the long term and at first hand) don't show up to participate in the discussion, then the participants are naturally going to be in significant part ANI regulars. There's no "assumption" that the regulars are smarter or better disposed to decide on the situation, they're merely the people who are there, and consensus has to be based on what the participants in the discussion say. The solution to that flaw is that more people who are aware of the situation from experience need to get over whatever feelings they have about posting on the "dramah boards" and get involved in discussions they are knowledgeable about. That can only improve the quality of the discussion, and, not incidentally, would provide more information for the regulars to chew on, increasing the probability that they will see things the way the front-liners do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I should have avoided that meta issue here as off topic – my bad. As my penance I'll refrain from voicing my response to your comment, but I'd be happy to continue that on my UTP. From time to time I can't resist testing the level of traction for serious reform, so I know whether starting a debate in a more appropriate forum is worth my time. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC) So are we now dealing with a case of ANI flu? Perhaps a block will convince Anthony to discuss this. Jayjg (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I would support that. At its core, this is a competence issue as I’ve been saying all along. Regardless of how many diffs there are, if this guy doesn’t want to collaborate with other editors or resolve disputes in an orderly way, I don’t think it’s reasonable for him to still be editing and creating work for others to fix. The way I see it, either he gets blocked or we close this discussion and let him do whatever he wants. Just letting him ignore problems that he has created isn’t fair to the project or to anyone who has clean up after him. Michepman (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC) "either he gets blocked or we close this discussion and let him do whatever he wants" No, we close this discussion and have it properly opened. That means an editor properly presents not just diffs but diffs with explanations individually accompanying each diff, just as we see at the section called PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor. Notice how each diff is orderly presented. Note how each diff is dated. Note how each diff is accompanied by an explanation by the person initiating the complaint, explaining why the diff is seen as supporting the overall complaint. As far as I can tell User:Tapered did not properly formulate the very first post in this section. I don't think this should be overlooked. The purpose for proper formulation is twofold. To take responsibility for lodging a complaint against another. And to make it easy for any onlooker to evaluate the complaint and therefore knowledgeably weigh in with constructive input. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Bus stop, please review WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. This is not a personal issue between two editors, and there's no requirement for any of the things you are demanding. Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC) These weird calls for closures and "proper" opens are increasingly disruptive. The behavior has been presented, evidence has been provided, and pretending otherwise is deliberately unhelpful. It's an open discussion, and the OP's ongoing participation is not necessary if other editors are expressing concerns. Also support that Anthony22 needs a block if they are unwilling to respond to concerns here. Grandpallama (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I agree. The evidence / diffs have been presented, and the pattern of behavior has been documented. If User:Bus stop does not want to take the time to read through all of it, that's understandable, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an issue. Closing and reopening the discussion is not required by the rules and wouldn't add any value to the discussion, and I think it's time to actually talk about the behavioral issues raised above. Frankly, I don't think it's acceptable for a user to cause disruption and ignore all attempts to discuss it. If this was a one-time thing, it would be different, but a chronic behavioral issue that has gone unacknowledged and unremediated is disruptive. I get why a block might be distasteful, but I don't see how else to get his attention. Michepman (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC) The last time Anthony22 got this much heat (less heat, actually, since it didn't involve an ANI complaint), he took a 7-month wikibreak (see above). Considering that, the only useful block would be an indefinite one. After some number of months, when he decided to get the block lifted with a pledge to respond to this complaint (How does that work, exactly, after the complaint has long been archived? Would the thread be restored from archive? Would all participants here be notified of the resumption?) I think his response would be predictably much like the few responses we have already seen on his UTP, where little improvement has been realized. The only response I'm interested in hearing is: "I agree not to do any more copy editing," either retiring or following my June 2018 suggestion to choose from the many other ways to contribute to the project in areas sorely in need of more help. An involuntary ban from copy editing would accomplish the same end while being more binding. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC) My mistake, I see he's somewhat active as of yesterday afternoon UTC, so part of my reasoning fails. Nevertheless, an indef block would be no different than a temp block with its lifting conditioned on his agreement to engage, except that it wouldn't automatically expire before he made that agreement. But one needn't look any deeper than his last few days of editing to see some of the problem, and that the problem continues. Edits that are pointless at best, with hare-brained rationales. You don't "ban" an inanimate object; a person is banned. That alone violates the principle that every edit must improve the encyclopedia, and in my estimation it constitutes about half of his editing. Edits that show a lack of awareness of the need to reflect sources. Edits that show a lack of awareness of prior consensus, not because he's new to the article but because he shuns article talk. Mixed in are some good edits, and I've never claimed that he doesn't make any. I've asserted that the bad outweighs the good, hence "net negative", and experience shows that the bad is not going to be reduced via counseling. We generally need to recognize the importance of aptitude in this business, and that not everybody can be good at everything here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC) There was a request to see diffs from Anthony22's talk page (in so many words). Here are seven from June 25, 2019 2018 to August 25, 2019 : [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208] and there is more. that follows into August. All one has to do is continue flipping the pages. Here is Mandruss's June 2018 suggestion. That adds one more talk page diff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC) User:Anthony22 is still editing, and still making inapproriate edits that are quickly reverted. I see two possible courses of action here: A restriction from copyediting. This would restrict him from editing any other editor's prose in articles, but allow him to add his own prose, and do various other kinds of things (e.g. add citations, categories etc.), or A block until he presents a convincing case that he will stop this disruption. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I would support either remedy, and I'm willing to make the block. Numerous editors have brought good-faith concerns and he's not engaging. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I would hope that the number and sincerity of the good-faith concerns that you have rightly observed would mean that you get little opposition. You certainly have my support. If nothing else I hope it will encourage dialogue.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC) allow him to add his own prose doesn't seem useful because many of the same issues would occur in his own prose. Pointless (or worse) and compulsive chewing on existing prose is only part of the problem. I would prefer a ban on copy editing, which pretty much means he doesn't touch prose. If there is some rule that such a ban can't be imposed without first hearing his response (i.e. his responses on his talk page don't count for this purpose), then an indef block is needed (and my "small" questions about process above have not been answered). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I don’t believe that there is a rule that says that the admins can’t impose a ban without hearing from the user. While ideally he would be here and would communicate, the fact that he has chosen to ignore this WP:ANI thread doesn’t immunize him from a sanction. As far as banning him from adding prose to an article — I see your point, but if he isn’t allowed to contribute his own prose then isn’t that effectively a ban on editing of all kinds? Maybe that’s for the best, but I think it goes beyond a restriction on copy editing, since all he could do really is add sources and other activities that don’t involve adding text. Michepman (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC) See this. Like "editor", "editing" has a very broad definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Isn't the thrust of this thread too broad-brushed? Has Anthony22 been reported at AN/I before? Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I think a ban on copy editing is appropriate at this point. If they don't adhere to the ban then a block would be needed. I'm not sure for how long a block. I can see the logic behind an indef block - they would have to delineate how they would change their behavior before the block is lifted. But even when the block is lifted I think the ban should remain in place while they show they will no longer be disruptive. The ban can removed once confidence is restored by they're editing behavior. I'm sure any Admin or set of Admins can do this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC) To be clear - what I mean by "ban on copy editing" is this would include not adding their own prose because I see potential conflict there. As has been pointed out above there are other types of editing available. Article talk page discussions should also be allowed. (imho). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I don't think anyone has even alleged that their edits are in bad faith. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I think it's fair to say that the allegations are of chronic disruptive edits. AGF is fine but the seemingly resolute refusal of the editor to engage with the concerns expressed here and elsewhere makes that less easy than it could be. To be didactic re process concerning the continued involvement of the original complainant seems contradictory to the lack of acknowledgment that the editor in question's own absence makes restrictive action more necessary than it would be were that not the case.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC) I agree with NEDOCHAN -- good faith is not everything, and an editor acting in good faith can still be disruptive if their edits -- well-meaning though they may be -- do not improve the article and have to be reverted by numerous editors. However, before I can support a ban on copy editing, I think "copy editing" needs to be somewhat more precisely defined, both so that Anthony22 can know exactly what he is not allowed to do, and so the community can see clearly if he violates the sanctions or tries to game them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC) I agree that's too vague, and something like "no direct addition, removal, or alteration of article prose" might suffice. If that left any holes, e.g. as to infobox parameter values, I don't think the magnitude of the remaining problem would be any more significant than what we routinely deal with from hundreds of other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC) "[T]he seemingly resolute refusal of the editor to engage with the concerns expressed here" is explainable by the vagueness of the charges. I think there is little they could say in their own defense against charges so nonspecific. Have they been brought to AN/I before? Have they ever even been blocked? Couldn't a problematic edit result in an admin blocking for 24 hours? The thrust of this thread is to go from zero to 60 mph in a heartbeat. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC) @Bus stop: I think there is little they could say in their own defense against charges so nonspecific. With supreme effort, I'm going to refrain from uttering an expletive synonymous with equine feces. That is a simply ridiculous argument, and we see you grasping at straws. There is exactly nothing preventing Anthony22 from coming here and posting something like the following: "I'll be happy to respond here, but I don't entirely understand what the problem is perceived to be. Could you elaborate?" Your role here is not to do that on his behalf. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC) I'm afraid it's becoming very difficult to take your points seriously. You have an odd idea of a heart beat.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC) NEDOCHAN—incremental is best. WP:BLOCK: "Duration of blocks—Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden". Why do I say we are going from 0 to 60 in a heartbeat? Because there were no earlier blocks for shorter lengths of time. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC) His block log indicates that he was blocked once over a year ago, but that's it. I think the situation would be different if the subject agreed to come here and discuss the issue with other editors so that we can move forward collaboratively, but his decision not to participate -- which you have tried and failed to justify above -- has kind of backed everyone else into a corner. If he isn't willing to change his ways, or even to discuss others' concerns and collaborate to resolve the editing disputes as all editors are required to do, then what else is there to do? Your objections seem mostly bureaucratic in nature -- closing and reopening discussions, rearranging diffs, etc. You're not really discussing the substance of the complaints being raised, even though they've been explained repeatedly since the discussion opened... Michepman (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Michepman—I stand corrected. He has one block on his record but it may have been for something unrelated. If they make a future problematic edit, a 24 hour block can be imposed. An admin can be notified by a non-admin, with or without an AN/I thread being opened. 24 hour blocks can be followed with 72 hour blocks. And this is incremental instead of draconian. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If had made "a future problematic edit," what would a 24-hour block prevent? with or without an AN/I thread being opened. No admin is going to unilaterally block for a bad copy edit, particularly one by an established editor. Regardless, escalating blocks would not increase his aptitude for the pure wordsmithing part of copy editing, which, as I've said, I estimate to be about half of the overall problem; that's something you have or you don't. Nor would escalating blocks reduce the quite evident compulsiveness to "improve" prose that doesn't need improving. incremental instead of draconian It is not "draconian" to ask an editor to find a different rewarding way to contribute to the project. The only one being unreasonable in this situation is Anthony22, who, faced with an unusual level of agreement that he should find that different way, refuses to do so and refuses to explain why he refuses to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC) "Your role here is not to do that on his behalf." Obviously Anthony22 can come here and post whatever they choose. I am not in communication with them. I'm just guessing why they may not be inclined to get involved in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Complete (and out of position) failure to get the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC) One of your points is that it is problematic that the editor has not shown up here. I don't entirely disagree, but I think I understand why, and I have offered my suggestion as to why that may be. Further you express that "[n]o admin is going to unilaterally block for a bad copy edit, particularly one by an established editor". I don't know if that is so. Perhaps an admin will weigh in on that. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC) The point, which you still fail to get, is that it is not useful for us to speculate as to what bad reasons Anthony22 might have for failing to respond here. By even bringing that up, you are attempting to defend the indefensible – or, if you're not defending it, what's the point of bringing that up? We don't need to understand [...] why that may be. Again, you are consuming lots of oxygen without contributing much to this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Mandruss—you say "escalating blocks would not increase his aptitude for the pure wordsmithing part of copy editing". Is it not possible that escalating blocks would in general influence an editor to think twice before making possibly-problematic edits? This comes down to the opinions of admins so I hope one weighs in here. Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC) I agree with User:Bus stop. I think we have gone around in circles for a bit, and it has been 5-6 days so far with no actual progress being made in any direction. I think it's time for an admin to weigh in and decide what, if anything, they will do to help resolve this issue constructively. If the admins can't or won't intervene at this point, then we should at least get clarity on that as well so that we aren't just spinning our wheels for another week. Michepman (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC) I've been here a number of times before. We now have over 6,000 words that no admin has the time to read and absorb, thanks in large part to Bus stop's pointless verbosity, "weird calls for closures", goalpost-moving, failure to hear, and so on, all resulting from a lack of a moderator with teeth. If an admin looks at all, they will perform a quick scan for the large number of diffs sufficient to warrant a topic ban. Not seeing that for the reason I've explained previously, they will decline to act. Equally likely is that the thread will just be ignored until it's archived. Either way, the years-long Anthony22 problem will remain unresolved. Having already cost a considerable amount of editor time, it will continue to cost editor time, and someone will eventually become fed up enough to open another complaint here. And then it will cost yet more editor time here, probably resulting in no admin action again. 'Round and 'round and 'round we go, all to avoid asking one editor to find a different way to contribute. As I've indicated, this page is seriously broken. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC) In my opinion conservative treatment for a problem is preferable to more radical methods of addressing a problem. This issue has received attention in this thread. It should be easier in the future to link to this thread and summon a sympathetic admin if you or anyone else sees a particularly problematic edit by Anthony22. Escalating blocks would probably have a beneficial effect. This is conservative and less radical than "asking one editor to find a different way to contribute". Bus stop (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. If eighteen comments are not enough to convince other participants, another eighteen repeating the same arguments are unlikely to change any minds. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 1

Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page. This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have notified Anthony22 on their talk page about this proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken—can you address why your suggestion is preferable to escalating blocks if edits made by Anthony22 are deemed block-worthy? Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• He has a history of going away for a while when criticized, then resuming his behavior after everyone has moved on to other things. Escalating blocks are thus unlikely to solve the underlying problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Further, escalating blocks are a haphazard solution, requiring admins to recognize the situation and its history and apply the blocks, or an editor to report A22 to the noticeboards, where a discussion such as this one is likely to result. The offered proposal seeks to short circuit that waste of time and energy and cut to the core of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This can be addressed by more moderate means such as escalating blocks. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as being the remedy that is most likely to solve the problem. The usual "edit productively in other areas for six months and then feel free to appeal" language should be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I am very reluctant to support any kind of block or ban, but the ongoing disruption and time-wasting doesn't leave a lot of options, sadly. If Anthony had made any effort at all to engage with the discussion (here, on his own talk page, or in another talk page) I would feel differently, but I'm afraid that this is the only way that this issue will be resolved constructively (without repeating the cycle of people complaining, Anthony hiding out for a little while, and then resuming the disruption after everyone has forgotten). Michepman (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's more complex than I would prefer, and some of the persistent issues will still manifest in the content that it allows him to add. But it's far better than nothing. He may well choose not to add anything, since he hasn't shown much interest in sources or citations. My earlier rant may have been overblown; we'll see. It occurred to me after I wrote it that a formal proposal had not been attempted; thanks to BMK for starting it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Mandruss: I'm aware that my proposal doesn't give everyone everything they would want, but I tried to craft it so that Anthony22 wouldn't be driven away from editing, and would have the opportunity to contribute in a productive way, but with safeguards (i.e. requiring references for additions and talk page explanations for deletions) that would help keep his contributions on the straight-and-narrow. I'll admit it's not a perfect solution, but I wanted to do something to get the ball rolling and possibly wrap up this overly extended discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per Michepman- the lack of engagement or explanation and the ongoing time required to reverse the errors combined mean there is no obvious alternative.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support; Anthony22 has been a tremendous time-sink for a number of articles (and editors) for a long time. He especially likes to edit GA and FA rated articles because he feels they are so poorly written. I have in the past left messages on his talk page as to articles and his editing, but he has refused to listen to reason. I agree with Michepman, Mandruss and NEDOCHAN in their comments. Kierzek (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open. By the way, there is a staggering difference of opinion on the issue of constructive vs. disruptive editing. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written with terrible grammar, spelling, punctuation, chronology, logic, and sentence structuring. I have attempted to correct those mistakes. Some of the people who revert my edits are doing more harm than good. There has been a staggering waste of time and effort on my part as well as a waste of time of the revert "specialists". The first thing that you have to recognize about Wikipedia is the fact that the information cannot be verified. Even with so-called "reliable" sources, don't bet your life on what you read in the articles. The most hilarious newspaper headline of all time was, "Dewey Defeats Truman" in 1948. Wikipedia has also had some silly headlines.Anthony22 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• This appears to be a statement that you will sockpuppet to avoid any editing restrictions that the community chooses to impose. I suggest that you clarify what you mean here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't say that I would actually do this. I said that I could do this if I wanted to continue editing. I'm beginning to think that it's a waste of time to edit on Wikipedia.Anthony22 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• And here we see nub of the problem, Anthony22: you really do not seem to have the ability to express in writing what you intend to express. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Please re-read the proposal carefully. If it is accepted by the community, you would not be blocked from editing, you would be disallowed from making what are referred to as "copyediting" changes, changes in grammar or syntax. I disagree that the "overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written", although it is indisputably the case that there is a significant amount of poor writing. That, however, is not relevant to this discussion, because the issue here is not that articles are badly written, the issue is that your attempts to fix them do not generally improve those articles, and there is little "staggering difference of opinion" about that: the clear consensus in the discussion above agrees that your "improvements" just aren't improvements. The rest of your argumentation is irrelevant at best, specious at worst.
  I agree with Nigel Ish that your first two sentences appear to be a threat to sock if you are blocked. I would advise you to strike those sentences, which amount to an argument that no one should ever be blocked for any reason at any time, because they can always sock their way around the block. Such a viewpoint shows a fundamental disrespect for Wikipedia and its editing community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that no one should be blocked from editing at any time. Editors who vandalize articles can and should be blocked. What I AM saying is that you cannot stop someone from getting around a block. Personally, I would not register a new account with a different username to get around a block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony22 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• If you have no intention of socking, what the heck is the point of bringing it up? We're not having some abstract intellectual discussion about editing on Wikipedia, we're examining whether your editing is helpful or not and whether you should be sanctioned in some way. In that context -- the only reasonable context there is -- your talking about socking can only be taken as a threat to do so. I can't believe that any independent observer would take it as anything else.
  Please keep your commentary here focused on why you should not be sanctioned or, at the very least, acknowledge what other editors are complaining about and give some assurances that you won't continue to do it. What your general thoughts are about Wikipedia are nothing but a distraction and, frankly, an apparent dodge from dealing with your own problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per lengthy discussion in the previous section, and per Anthony22's response immediately above. When finally motivated enough to respond, Anthony22's response was a denial of any problem, a repudiation of WP:V, and a veiled threat to sock. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• There was no "veiled threat to sock". What you are engaging in I would characterize as "language policing". Bus stop (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Really?

  What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open. (emphasis added)

  Bus stop, please don't start that garbage again. That most certainly was a threat to sock, not an anstract statement, no matter how much Anthony22 seeks to deny it, or how many blind eyes you wish to turn to it, as you have been doing throughout this discussion in regard to Anthony22's behavior. Your participation here has been unhelpful and obstructive, and I, for one, would like to see you stop it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• You're right about one thing--the threat wasn't veiled at all. I'm starting to think Anthony22 isn't the only one who requires a sanction as a result of this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: See below. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia.........This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed.

When I read those opening words, I thought that I had been blocked from editing for the next 6 months. I misinterpreted the wording, which is VERY confusing. I still don't know what "topic banned" means if I have not been blocked.Anthony22 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You can read about topic bans here: WP:Topic ban. I'm astounded that after 13 1/2 years on Wikipedia and 34,363 edits, you have no idea what a topic ban is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I think that Anthony is confused and believes that the proposal on this page about topic banning him is in fact a notification that he has already been blocked. I don't think that he is saying that he doesn't know what a ban is, he only misconstrued the proposal on this page as something that has already been enacted. Michepman (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If he had actually been blocked, he wouldn’t have been able to edit this page, now would he? It is clear that there are a lot of concepts he doesn’t understand. Anthony, nothing has been done here yet, but here is what is being proposed: Nobody is suggesting that you be blocked, which would mean you couldn't edit anywhere on Wikipedia except your own talk page. The topic ban proposal means that you would still be able to edit. You could make content edits, such as adding sourced information or removing incorrect information, but you would not be allowed to make any edits along the lines of "correcting" prose style or grammar or other language usage. If this topic ban is enacted, you would have to stop doing that kind of edit. And if you did it anyhow, then you would be given a brief block from editing, with longer blocks if you keep doing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and in case this hasn’t already been made clear: you must NOT create a new account to let you do things you have been blocked or banned from doing. That’s called making a sock puppet and it is very much against the rules here. If you do that it will get you immediately blocked from all editing.-- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Methinks Anthony22 is purposely pretending to misunderstand. He could have easily cut and pasted "Formal proposal: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community" but instead he edited the original, changing it to "Comment: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community". I believe he edited the original so that he could pretend to not understand that it is a proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, Anthony. I know your belief is 'The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written with terrible grammar, spelling, punctuation, chronology, logic, and sentence structuring.' The point that many editors have been making for a very long time on your talk page and elsewhere is that your attempts to improve such things do not improve them. Most of the time, your edits actually make the text worse than it was before. You also tend to target featured articles for your copy edits. These have normally been scrutinised quite carefully. That doesn't mean they're perfect but they're not going to be 'terrible'. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - addresses the disruption while giving Anthony the opportunity to establish a more constructive editing pattern. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Between the refusal to even acknowledge the discussion, the multiple examples of problematic editing, and the subsequent declaration that blocking is no big deal since one can just sock, it's an easy call. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Anthony 22 is continuing is exactly the same manner. The editor is making a series of edits that are being reverted. A decision needs to be made. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chappaquiddick_incident&action=history NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Anthony22's editing behavior is a clear and years-long running case of WP:IDHT by not acknowledging or discussing feedback pertaining to their edits are not an improvement and are not helpful (See diffs I posted in the above discussion). This has also been demonstrated in their above first statement as well as countering with a plan for sockpuppeting. In fact, their edits over time are considered disruptive as often as not. Their intractable attitude about the poor state of prose that needs correcting is not germain to GA and FA articles, which they have barged in on without first discussing it. Also, the poor state of prose argument is countered by the negative feedback on their talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also thanks to @Beyond My Ken: for initiating this formal proposal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: discipline should be instructive not destructive - also gradual, not straight to death penalty. The least diff that was reverted...perpetrator, accused- is a matter or perspective Lightburst (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't see the point of this rather vaguely phrased and malleable topic ban. Having to seek the talk page for every little edit is really asking too much. My proposal, and I would have acted on it if there hadn't been this competing proposal, is an indefinite block, and I'll tell you why: a. Anthony22 couldn't be bothered to show up here until days after the case was made here; b. when they did they didn't understand what was being proposed (a matter of competence); c. when it was explained to them they still didn't understand and suggested they might start socking; d. they blamed others; e. this edit and this edit--completely unacceptable, even idiotic, and they couldn't be bothered to respond on their own talk page.

  Summing up: we have a lack of grammatical and editorial competence, an unwillingness to engage in conversation with other editors, a refusal to deal with and learn from criticism, and a display of disregard for the collaborative nature of this project. An indefinite block is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies: In what way is the proposal "vaguely phrased". What I intended it to say was:

• Anthony22 cannot make any stylistic or grammatical changes to text;
• Anthony22 can add text to articles, but only if it is supported by a citation from a reliable source;
• Anthony22 can remove text from articles, but he has to immeidately explain his ereasoning for removals on the article's talk page.

In what way does the proposal not convey that intention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• BTW, it's not too late to propose an indef block; I'm betting that there would be a fair amount of support for that. It's hardly unusual for both a topic ban and an indef to be approved by the community at the same time, so that if the subject editor is un-indeffed, the topic ban would still be in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• BTW(2) - In my opinion, it's generally better to support a sanction which is less encompassing then the one that would be preferred, on the age-old grounds "Better this than nothing." An "oppose" only helps there to be nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, "stylistic or grammatical" is inherently vague. As a grammarian, I will maintain that capitalization and punctuation, for instance, have nothing to do with grammar. And "style", does that point to how one phrases things and composes sentences? What about formatting, meaning the Wiki code? I think that this kind of thing will just lead to bickering and wikilawyering. On the bright side, if this passes, the editor seems to have so little interest in conversation that maybe it'll never come to that. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would argue that to a non-expert, the language is quite clear, that colloquially it defines what Anthony22 can and can't do sufficiently to put a stop to the problem -- especially when "broadly construed" is taken into consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as written The requirement to support every little deletion on the talk page is too onerous, and the second sentence is too detailed. I could support a proposal that says something along the lines of: "Anthony22 is indefinitely prohibited from making edits that are purely stylistic or grammatical. A different sanction that I think might address the problem in a different way is: Anthony22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. This would be more enforceable, since the number of edits per day is something we can easily quantify. I'm also open to any sanction that Mandruss might propose, since they seem to have a deeper understanding of the problem than anybody else in the thread. ~Awilley (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, so I'll just say once more what I said to Drmies: opposing this proposal because of disagreements with its wording will only have the effect of making it more likely that no sanction again Anthony22 is going to be approved at this time, and the problem will simply continue. An "oppose" !vote does not necessarily lead to a different sanction, but it will lead to deep-sixing this one.

  I would encourage anyone who has !voted "oppose as written" to change their vote to "support" in order that something be done about the problem of Anthony22, or that they fashion their own proposal and put it up for community consideration without waiting for this discussion to be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, I had read your replies to Drmies already, and I still think that no sanction is preferable to a bad sanction. My preference would be for either a better sanction to be proposed, or for the closing admin to modify the sanction in closing, fixing the problems and adjusting for the opposes. ~Awilley (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  OK. I can't say that I understand your logic, that it's better not to solve a problem at all than to solve it imperfectly, but so be it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I had already suggested something close to "no direct addition, removal, or alteration of article prose", per my general belief that simpler is usually better. As I've indicated, there are many other ways to contribute to the project, and some of them are more meaningful to the project than language tweaking. But I also believe, like BMK, that perfect is the enemy of good, so I'll refrain from making a Proposal 4. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment How's this as an eg? ' The words "expert" and "opinion" are not usually attached to each other.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._B._Cooper&diff=914073654&oldid=914072165) Please can some action be taken?NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the above discussion, but mostly because of Anthony22's lack of understanding the problem --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as written per Awilley. The way it's currently phrased could quite literally apply to EVERY edit anyone makes. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I've decided to go along with @Awilley: and @Drmies: because they are admins who are highly regarded and can be considered as guides that are lighting the trail on this one. I believe that we who Ivoted "support" feel that being even-handed and circumspect is the best approach with the indef ban in a certain area of editing. So, in the spirit of this attitude I have decided on another proposal, proposed by Awilley, which is written below. I am taking into account the feedback that the current proposal might seem confusing to some, as noted by Drmies, Buffs and Awilley. In fact, this confusion might cause others to not comment or Ivote at all. Therefore, a more succinct proposal seems to be the more rational approach. I still thank BYK for stepping up in the first place, and getting the ball rolling on this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Checking of any one of their many many bad edits shows that the examination of each takes much more effort than the original edit. This soaks up an enormous amount of time and effort. Compulsive editing, editing to fill up time, editingis to scratch dubious itches, and editing based most obviously on lack of skill / knowledge / experience is heinous abuse of the community, cumulatively. I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed more globally already. Shenme (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Too broad. Anthony may not change "an computer mouse" to "a computer mouse"? This is virtually impossible to enforce. A better response would be an indefinite block: someone who's routinely disrupting articles over the long term, and demonstrably thinking about sockpuppetry, is a long-term negative to this project. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a spelling correction -- correcting a typo. It does not fall under the proposed TBan even broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support but perhaps an easier solution might be a topic ban from more narrowly specific types of edit, and I'd suggest spelling, spacing, or punctuation changes. Perhaps we won't need an actual block. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• As the proposer, it was my intention that "stylistic and grammatical changes" would include spelling, capitalization, spacing and punctuation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a non-admin. With the en.Wikipedia's now large size and scope it is becoming increasingly onerous to police established articles WP:Competence is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC).
• Support. Enough is enough, and disruption is disruption. Our goal (at ANI) is to deal with and eliminate disruption, and the editor is clearly disruptive and this has been going on a very long time. This TBan will allow us to see whether the editor is capable of editing in a constructive way, building an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, this seems to me to address the core problem narrowly. Guy (help!) 10:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support this proposal, broadly construed as per discussion above, but I would prefer a definite much shorter time period, maybe a month or two for them to learn a new way of editing. To go directly from no sanction to an indefinite sanction seems contrary to our usual way of dealing with problem editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This editor's behavior imposes too much burden on other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC) (n0n-admin).

Formal proposal 2

Bus stop (talk · contribs) is banned from making comments at WP:Administrators' noticeboard and WP:AN/I for a period of 3 months.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Because of his continual bludgeoning of this discussion with disruptive and often ridiculous comments, Bus stop is banned from making comments at Administrator Noticeboards for 3 months. Support as proposer. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Comment - I agree that, as I said above, Bus stop's participation in this discussion has been unhelpful and obstructive, but they haven't commented since I made that observation. Whether I support this proposal will depend entirely on what happens between now and when this discussion is closed. My support of any future proposal of this type will likewise depend on the nature of their participation in discussions subsequent to this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC) I've formally notified Bus stop about this sub-thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Thanks, although the user template in my proposal above also notified him. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Just out of an abundance of caution: I was castigated recently for not notifying an editor when I made a proposal about them in a thread in which they were heavily involved in the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC) I apologize for butting in. I respect the seasoned handling of the matter by others who have handled these matters at AN/I over longer periods of time than I have, and I promise to be more circumspect in any future input I may feel I think I can provide. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Support with regret. Bus stop is a good content editor and a net positive for the community. But their behavior in discussions on talk pages, notice boards and also AfD has frequently been tendentious. They have a bad habit of posting endless comments, often repeating points already made and bludgeoning other editors. Their inability to drop the stick has been noted by others and I have found it necessary to warn them on more than one occasion. A quick glance at their editing history suggests that if they spent anymore time at ANI they could qualify for legal residency and have their postal mail delivered here. Frankly I'd like to see a six month TBan from all noticeboard discussions where they are not an INVOLVED party. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Oppose Bus stop is a valuable voice here; not always the most succinct but always with positive and thoughtful responses; however complex. He has apologized and he should basically be respected to let these matters be decided already without further any input from him. He should not be silenced..Modernist (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Support per Ad Orientem. Repetitive and circular argument, failure to hear and comprehend opposing argument, challenging discussion opponents with questions that have already been answered multiple times in that or previous discussions, inability to "agree to disagree". The result is a discussion that soon reaches an unnecessarily enormous size that it's unlikely many new arrivals care to read (and pity the poor closer who has to read all of it if they're doing the job right). For a couple of years I've been a vocal and often harsh critic of these disruptive habits on article talk pages, and it's reached the point where I try to avoid engaging with Bus stop whenever I can (so he has accused me of failing to engage in constructive discussion). Combined, all of this amounts to trollish behavior whether that's his intent or not, and I've told him so. This sanction wouldn't have any direct effect in article talk, but it might help drive home the point that Bus stop has refused to hear so far. If I saw clear signs that he finally gets it and resolves to change his ways, I would gladly switch to Oppose. I don't see that in his one response here to date. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Mandruss—you say "If I saw clear signs that he finally gets it and resolves to change his ways, I would gladly switch to Oppose. I don't see that in his one response here to date." What would constitute "clear signs" for you? Please be concrete. Please don't be vague. Please tell me the shortcomings that you see in my "response here to date". Bus stop (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Well, you said you "promise to be more circumspect" (speaking of being vague). I have written 200 fairly concrete words above, and I'd like to see you respond to those points. I'm not going to feed you the words that would convince me. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Is there a specific area you would like me to address? Bus stop (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC) How about all of the specific areas I noted in my comment? It isn't that long. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Comment - If User:Bus stop commits to taking the time to learn more about WP:ANI and commits to avoiding “wiki-lawyering”, then I don’t think that any additional sanction or ban is needed. I think he makes some good points, but he does have a tendency in this thread to prioritize format over substance (eg ignoring diffs of problematic behavior because they were not included by the first comment on this thread, insisting on arbitrary locking and reopening threads over non-substantive technicalities that don’t have any policy basis behind them). It did feel like a defense attorney’s dilatory tactics rather than a good faith attempt to address and resolve the issue, but if he is willing to stop doing that sort of thing then I don’t think that he should be banned. Can we agree on that? (And for what it’s worth, I don’t think that his comments are overly long — it’s more that they aren’t helpful, but I think his heart in the right place. he just needs to understand that this isn’t a court room and that throwing up hurdles like the above examples doesn’t help anyone, even Anthony22.)Michepman (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Michepman—your above post makes basically reasonable points. If I take exception to one thing most it is that I didn't "attempt to address and resolve the issue". At the end of a lengthy discussion with many detours, perhaps foolhardy on my part, I reached a conclusion that "escalating blocks" were best. The prevailing consensus instead preferred a banning from copywriting, or something like that. But I definitely attempted to address and resolve the issue. You ask me to commit to learning more about WP:ANI and to avoid wiki-lawyering. Of course I will commit to that. Bus stop (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Fair enough. I think the only problematic behavior was just the part above about locking and unlocking the thread and asking for diffs and then not reading them. You did make more on topic points about escalating blocks later so I shouldn’t discount that. Michepman (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Oppose immediate ban but consider this a warning such that if they restart this type of behavior on a talk page (the wikilawyering and endless repetition) as determined by an uninvolved admin that if they don't stop after a more formal warning in that situation, that ban can be implemented. They do often have a valid voice at a start of a discussion, but its the inability to learn when consensus has long-pasted on or to take "no" for an answer that they keep going and going into logic circles that's the problem here. I am not aware of Bus Stop being formally notified that this behavior is disruptive, and assuming there hasn't been such a point, this should be considered it. --Masem (t) 13:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Oppose immediate ban - per User:Masem - I don’t think this one incident necessarily deserves an automatic ban. It sounds like he understands that he didn’t handle this well but is committing to avoiding the problematic aspects of his approach going forward. In light of that, there’s no need for a ban right now. Obviously in the off chance that there are future issues we can revisit it then but as of now I think we can just let this be a warning and leave it at that. Michepman (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Masem, Michepman This is not just one incident, but a multi-year issue about which Bus stop has been repeatedly warned; see below. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Note Just to be clear this isn't one just incident, but rather one more example of years of this behavior. These relatively recent links show more of the same: User talk:Bus stop#A trout, for that fishing expedition and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 150#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events. User:SMcCandlish trouts Bus stop for this behavior, and links him to WP:SATISFY, and User:Mandruss states there that he has "linked that for Bus stop at least three times in the past several months, in various venues." Bus stop is apologetic, and promises to stop doing it, but it doesn't last (apparently). Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Adding just to show this has been going on for years: "No wonder this thread is so long - you don't listen, you just repeat yourself." - User:Bbb23, August 2011. "Bus stop, my impression is that you join these disputes and then post so much and so frequently that these disputes come to be about you" - User:Jayen466, August 2012. "I asked you whether you could reflect on the fact that multiple editors keep telling you that you post walls of text repeating arguments you have already made, and that have already been responded to. In response you post another wall of text repeating the same arguments you have already made, and without addressing the question actually asked of you." - User:Jayen466, August 2012. There's lots more of this. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Jeepers. I don’t have time to review each of these in detail right now, but the first few diffs that I have read through do seem exceedingly problematic in a familiar way. I will stop by later to revise my thoughts with the additional context provided, but my first thought is that it seems like the issue extends beyond WP:ANI so the discussion should extend to (at minimum) cover the problematic. pattern of behavior everywhere and not just this specific board. Michepman (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC) I'm well aware of Bus Stop's past issues, but I still ask if anyone, wearing the admin hat, has actually formally told Bus Stop this behavior needs to stop? If all we've been saying to them is "you're being annoying" with their style, that's not a warning to act on. Hence, this discussion should serve as that formal warning (only to be signed off by some uninvolved admin that this is consensus that this is a problem) so that we actually may be able to take action if it happens again. If they have been warned in the past in a formal manner, then we can act on this now. --Masem (t) 19:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC) In my view, he has received so much negative feedback from experienced editors, including admins, that WP:BURO applies. He's had more than fair warning, even if not in the strict legalistic bureaucratic way, with forms signed in triplicate and filed at the local courthouse before the prescribed deadline. Consider the unintended consequence of your approach: Few behavior issues like this could be addressed outside of our "legal system", via WP's version of peer pressure and self-regulating community, since knowledgeable editors would know that no sanction would be possible until after they had received formal warning on this page. ANI simply lacks the necessary capacity. Perhaps we're already living with that unintended consequence, precisely because your legalistic approach is so popular? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC) But hold on a minute, Mandruss. You said "If I saw clear signs that he finally gets it and resolves to change his ways, I would gladly switch to Oppose. I don't see that in his one response here to date." I told everyone reading this thread that I would be more "circumspect" in the future. Please tell me why that is not good enough. Did I not apologize? Did I not commit to being "circumspect" in the future? For a definition, circumspect means "wary and unwilling to take risks". You have responded that "circumspect" is too vague. Of course "circumspect" is vague as I cannot know what the future situation be. My commitment is only to be "wary and unwilling to take risks". Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC) I'm getting that familiar trolled feeling again. If someone were deliberately playing dumb, it would look a lot like this. I stand by my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Mandruss—you said "If I saw clear signs that he finally gets it and resolves to change his ways, I would gladly switch to Oppose. I don't see that in his one response here to date." Obviously I would like you to "switch to Oppose". Obviously I am trying to gain your support. Masem seems to Oppose my being banned. And I have had disagreements with Masem similar to the sorts of disagreements I've had with you. No, I am not trolling you. I'm trying to ask you what it would take for you to Oppose my being banned. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC) I "opposed" on the basis that you, Bus stop, do not appear to have a formal warning about this behavior. That said, you are flaunting that behavior in this very conversation about this potential ban or warning, and I'm very close to stating that a ban is close to appropriate. Listen to what people are telling you: don't wikilawyer, don't play IDHT, don't try to twist others' words. Accept that editors are at the very edge about your conversation style in discussions like this and see it as disruptive, and you don't seem to be changing, even in discussing that. --Masem (t) 04:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Masem—I agree completely on the importance of formal warnings. That's why I argue for escalating blocks, for me and Anthony22. Escalating blocks are incremental. They are used as needed. And a link to a formal warning serves as adequate justification for a block of one day or two days or three days. And I think this better serves the role of behavior-modification due to the gradualness with which it is applied. Bus stop (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC) @Bus stop: You've had dozens of previous complaints, trouts, warnings etc. over this behavior, over many years. I recall you exhibiting this behavior (and people complaining about it) as far back as 2007. You've expressed contrition before, and then continued to behave in the same way. So, why would a "formal warning" and your new promise to be "circumspect" finally produce a different result? Jayjg (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Jayjg—anyone should be given a formal warning, not just me, unless the problem is so egregious that it needs immediate attention. When I say "circumspect" I mean "wary and unwilling to take risks". That is all a person realistically can commit to as the actual future will unfold in ways we can't predict. It is a general commitment rather than a specific commitment. I should think that after a person receives a formal warning it should be easy to impose a block. All an admin would have to do is link to the thread containing the formal warning as this would provide ample justification for the block. And subsequent blocks can be "escalating". Correct me if I am wrong but the aim of admins should be to protect the project and to modify the behavior of errant editors. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Comment I agree with Masem; Bus stop has been a valuable contributor here both positive and negative for a long time; this discussion serves as a fair warning...Modernist (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Oppose. Just ignore Bus stop when you feel they're bludgeoning. Other editors, including administrators, bludgeon as well, and not every one of Bus stop's posts is bludgeoning. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC) No one post of any editor is "bludgeoning". Bludgeoning is a cumulative process in which an editor attempts to control a discussion by the volume of their edits, especially when the content of their edits is essentially repetitive. Ignoring a bludgeoning editor is very difficult to do, as their edits constantly interrupt the flow of a discussion, often distracting from the main points or sending the discussion off on irrelevant tangents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Point well taken (though I would have understood it without the bolding too), and sorry for being sloppy. What I meant is that not every one of Bus stop's posts is part of the bludgeoning process, which, I acknowledge exists, but I do keep seeing others doing it too. I don't think it's difficult to only briefly glance at and not respond to such posts, but I guess that's the closest I can get to ignoring them—plonking isn't possible here, unfortunately. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Comment - I already !voted above, but after reviewing the provided diffs I still feel that Masem and Modernist are on the right track as far as how to handle this. I definitely agree that a lot of what he did in those discussions is very annoying, but I'm not sure that the proposed remedy is appropriate (for one, his issues are not limited to WP:ANI). It sounds like, for the most part, he has gotten into fairly heated debates and perhaps crossed the line of what would be recommended in some of those WP:ESSAYs referenced above -- resulting in trout slaps and irritation among other editors. However, it doesn't seem that he has broken any rules or even really been formally admonished that he is violating policy. Unlike certain other editors, he has also been willing to engage in dialogue (perhaps too much so haha) with others. I'm not endorsing everything that he has done so far, but I do think there is some merit in Sluzzelin's suggestion that it might be worth backing away from arguments when possible, and escalating the situation formally in cases where his input actually is too disruptive to ignore. I get that sometimes this behavior does disrupt the flow of conversation, but there are times when he just makes a one-off observation that happens to be wrong or silly, and instead of just ignoring it and moving forward, people try to get into a back-and-forth with him to force him to admit that he was in error (eg in the Village Pump thread) Michepman (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Support According to the diffs provided by User:Jayjg, bludgeoning by user:bus stop is an ongoing issue, and user:bus stop has received feedback on this issue in the past. Their contributions to the above discussion are more of the same. I think a better definition of circumspect in this instance is: "careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences" [209] or "...cautious; prudent; well-considered" [210]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Those are certainly different definitions. Why do you say that in "this instance" they would be "better" definitions? Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Support after the almost-complete derailing of this thread. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Support - I've been unfortunate enough to be involved in a recent discussion bludgeoned by Bus Stop at Talk:Australia where they threw so many strawmen and so much twisted logic around in so, so, so many words that it did a great deal of damage to the discussion. I see the same thing here, and I've seen it elsewhere. Noting the many times diff'ed and mentioned above, and the fact that they, incredibly, even pulled the same stunt with Mandruss in this very discussion, I support. I also concur with "If someone were deliberately playing dumb, it would look a lot like this." The only thing that concerns me about this sanction is that it is limited to Admin boards, whereas the behaviour most certainly is not...-- Begoon 04:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Uncoincidentally, Begoon, I opposed the position you held in this thread at Australia. Bus stop (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Bus Stop, I'd hardly have been bludgeoned by you if we agreed, would I? You're really stating the obvious here... Many people opposed the position I took, and many supported it. None, other than you, used derailing tactics, strawmen, endless repetition and disingenuous feigned lack of understanding as tactics. The pattern is clear - we see it here, we see it in the instances linked above, we see it elsewhere, and we see no commitment to reform or even acknowledgement that there is an issue. The time of volunteers is precious and you waste huge amounts of it constantly. This will be my final comment here. -- Begoon 04:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Oppose draconian measures against Bus stop. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Support, Bus stop has not been a net positive on ANI. I couldn't agree more with Begoon just above that "the time of volunteers is precious", and is not to be squandered recklessly, as Bus stop has done in this thread. Nor do I see anything "draconian" about being required to stay away from the drama boards for three months. Bishonen | talk 05:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC). I propose a one-year moratorium on the use of the word "draconian" on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Strongly oppose in line with my blanket opposition to any ban from administrative processes and noticeboards. Siteban him if he's that disruptive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC) I don't understand the logic of that. Several people here have commented that Bus stop is a good content editor, and a net positive to the project because of that. The problems seem to be on the notice boards and AfD. If an editor is disruptive in a particular subject area -- wrestling, BLPs, World War II, or whatever -- we topic ban them from that area. This proposal is in no way different than a topic ban from a content subject area, it's simply about a different area of Wikipedia, and specifically one that is not supposed to be our primary focus, which is building an encyclopedia. Being topic banned from noticeboards for 3 months is hardly a terribly onerous sanction. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but, frankly, this one doesn't make a lot of sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC) The problems seem to be on the notice boards and AfD. Matter of perspective. I don't spend a lot of time on noticeboards or AfDs, but I and Bus stop have for some years been regulars at articles about mass killing events. So virtually all of my experience with Bus stop has been at those articles. As I've suggested, my hope is that a sanction here would have a positive effect on his behavior there. If not, this sanction might at least serve as a starting point for a TBAN from mass killing events. Ultimately, if he can't make a substantial improvement, it unfortunately comes down to restricting him to topic areas that he's not particularly passionate about. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Mandruss—you are "passionate about" preventing victim lists from getting into new articles. That is your passion. I have never added a victim list to an article. I favor editorial freedom except where proscribed. You on the other hand favor a form of nannyism. You have "for some years" been spearheading an initiative to prevent victim lists from entering new articles. (Addendum/correction: I may have one time restored a victim list.) Bus stop (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC) I wish I could find the opinion that inspired this stance in me. Basically I see little value in denying access to procedural mechanisms for appeals on the grounds of past disruptive conduct. When the conduct is disruptive, we are free to ignore it, collapse it, or issue blocks. But shifting to a stance where we would revert, block, and ignore simply because of the identity of the person, I am of the opinion that the disruption must rise to the level of requiring a siteban before removing access to these mechanisms is justifiable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Support Excessive contrarian interjections derail discussions and waste community time. There have been many cases other than the problems in this report. Three months is not a long time and ANI will manage. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formal proposal 3

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit.

• Support as proposer for my above stated reasons in the original proposal. And, quoting Awilley - "This would be more enforceable, since the number of edits per day is something we can easily quantify." -Also, I request that this thread not be archived until it is resolved with an Admin decision. --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm curious as to where in the discussion above you see any complaints about the number of A22's edits, as opposed to the quality of them? I've looked, but perhaps I missed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, it seems to me you're splitting hairs. And I think you are missing the point. What I see in the above discussion is Wikipedia action against a disruptive editor - an editor who's behavior appears to be disruptive. Please see WP:DE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, you are correct. Steve Quinn, as much as I appreciate the kind words, it was indeed about the piss-poor quality of at least some of the edits. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I floated this idea when I noticed that A22s M.O. is to swoop in and make 35 consecutive minor edits of questionable quality. This clogs up the article history and places a high burden on people reviewing the edits. Combining those 35 edits into 1 single edit with a daily throttle would have the following effects:
  • Make the edits easier to review and revert if necessary
  • Prevent A22 from edit warring reverted changes back into the article
  • Force A22 to consider very carefully before hitting "Submit" (since one mistake could cause the whole edit to be reverted). I would expect quality of edits to improve if somebody switches from hitting "submit" once per minute to hitting "preview" or "changes" once per minute.
• Anyway that's the rationale here. ~Awilley (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the quality of edits - who is going to determine the quality of each edit? Do we have a "Master of Quality" that volunteers on Wikipedia? Quality is a subjective and nebulous term. I think the main issue is that Anthony 22's editing behavior is disruptive - or else this protracted ANI would not be taking place. As I noted above, please see WP:DE. I hate to be nit picky but - where in the guidelines and policies does an editor get gigged for "quality" of edits? I think disruptive behavior is the only thing that can be dealt with here. One edit in 24 hours seems equal to an indef copy editing ban to me. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Prevent A22 from edit warring reverted changes back into the article - To his credit, A22 doesn't edit war. Force A22 to consider very carefully before hitting "Submit" (since one mistake could cause the whole edit to be reverted). He doesn't make "mistakes". He uses poor judgment with hare-brained rationales, and that is not going to be improved by thinking about it longer, even if he did so. Again, this is about aptitude for the type of work.
  He helpfully writes edit summaries displaying said hare-brained rationales, and that wouldn't be possible if he were forced to bundle 35 edits into one. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support this is a reasonable way to allow Anthony22 to make constructive edits and simultaneously limit unproductive contributions from him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support whichever proposal has the most consensus I have no idea which proposal would best solve the problem, but I figure that if we pick the wrong one and it doesn't work, it would be easy enough to open a new case that takes into account how the last solution failed. So basically I am saying that I prefer the first proposal, I am OK with any alternative proposal, and I strongly oppose doing nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Since this is one edit per day per article, he could still feed his compulsion by simply hitting many more articles. It wouldn't address the issue to change the shape of his activity from deep to broad. Remove the "per article" and we might have something worth considering. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Mandruss:. Sorry about that. I didn't notice that loophole. What I intended is what you are saying. One edit per 24 hours, within the entire mainspace. I struck the loophole. I also refined the statement, noting that he has not been contentious in talk page discussions (because he avoids them?). I hope this is acceptable to everybody. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Steve Quinn: If you change the proposition after !voting, you at least need to notify everybody who has previously !voted. And that's important enough to do it by posting on their UTPs instead of pinging. Users have the option of turning off pings, so you can't depend on them 100%. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Mandruss, OK will do. Thanks for pointing this out. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yikes! One edit per day to the entire encyclopedia? That seems a bit harsh. ~Awilley (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Awilley: Maybe, but perhaps less "harsh" than my simpler preference, which is to divert him into a different area of contribution. I don't see a lot of benefit in agonizing over the best way to allow him to continue in an area that he's demonstrably not well suited for, merely reducing the damage to a manageable level. The mission is to develop a quality encyclopedia; when the needs and desires of individuals conflict with that, the mission should come first in my humble opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  divert him into a different area of contribution Is that a kind way of saying indef-block? If so, I am threatening something along those lines on his talk page if something doesn't change. Also, noting that I've restored the original proposal (since people have already voted on that specifically) and added the new one as an "alternate" that people can support in their votes if they want. ~Awilley (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Awilley: Is that a kind way of saying indef-block? No. See this and this. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I refactored your "alternate" into Proposal 4. Less confusing. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support in the sincere hope that something is done. Anthony22 is doubling down and has been editing furiously in such a way to make it clear that they have no intention whatsoever of addressing other editors' concerns. Something has to be done. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I understand the intent behind this proposal, but I'm not a huge fan. I think what's being overlooked here isn't just the fact that his edits are unhelpful but that he basically ignores everyone who tries to talk to him. It took him over a week to respond on WP:ANI when this case was open (and in the meantime continued editing in the problematic way), ignored repeated requests on his talkpage to engage, and when he finally did show up his first comment was to remind us that he can just use a sockpuppet account if he was banned. I think any sanction should come with (at a minimum) a firm recommendation that, if he does get into conflicts with other editors about quality and content, that he make reasonable, good faith efforts to discuss it with them rather than just barrelling forward with changes that end up being reverted. Without this admonishment, I am worried that this proposal will just create a weird sort of slow motion ripple effect where he messes up articles with large edits, those are reverted, and then he does it again the next day... and the next day... Michepman (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Meh - See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I realize he's making lots of changes, but there's lots I'm ok with. In my review, I only saw a handful that were clearly incorrect but could have been honest mistakes. I don't see a need to block for that. Perhaps a solution where he's required to document what's been changed more clearly in the edit summaries so mistakes can be more easily reverted (seems to be a bigger problem). Buffs (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal in no way deals with the problem. The problem is not that he makes separate edits for each of his "corrections"; in a way that is helpful, since it shows at a glance what he has been doing and why. It would actually be worse if he bundled his ten or twenty "corrections" into a single edit with a generic edit summary. The problem is that his "corrections" more often than not make the article worse, not better. He should be prohibited from making stylistic (including punctuation and capitalization) or grammar changes, because more often than not they have to be changed back. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 4

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.

Difference from proposal 3: "per article" removed. Actually initially added as a "proposal 3 alternate" by Awilley; i.e. I'm merely refactoring. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support this in addition to 1. Both are significantly better than nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Meh - still doesn't address the problem, which proposal 1 at least attempts to,Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• What does "meh" mean? In this case it means "If this proposal gets consensus then I'm OK with it being enacted, but it's definitely my second choice after proposal #1, which at least attempts to directly address the problem." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is your Proposal 4 meh different from your Proposal 3 meh? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, they're about the same. This sanction is so restrictive that you might as well just indef the guy instead. Proposal 3 means that he'll combine all his little edits into one big one, and the choice will be to either delete the entire thing (because the majority of his changes will be very poor), or unknitting it to leave in the small number of good changes. Neither seems to me to be the result we're looking for. I do wish someone would close my Proposal 1 (which is currently at 13-5 after 5 1/2 days) since I just went through his recent edits and reverted the typically poor ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Re "I do wish someone would close my Proposal" I am often the person who posts a "call for close" when a discussion has reached the point where waiting won't change the result, but normally Iait until there are no new !votes for three full days (longer if the consensus isn't overwhelmingly on one side) before considering that. There are still proposals that are gathering !votes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support whichever proposal has the most consensus I have no idea which proposal would best solve the problem, but I figure that if we pick the wrong one and it doesn't work, it would be easy enough to open a new case that takes into account how the last solution failed. So basically I am saying that I prefer the first proposal, I am OK with any alternative proposal, and I strongly oppose doing nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose See above. Buffs (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as above. Was it really necessary to start a whole new section? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Define "really necessary"; very few things are really necessary, strictly speaking. Awilley added this is as an "alternate" in Proposal 3. I saw that and felt the two proposals were different enough to warrant two sections for organization's sake. Am I missing some reason why things would have worked better the other way? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  The question was rhetorical. It actually wasn't that much of an annoyance to have to repeat my oppose. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 5

Anthony 22 is blocked for 30 days. Anthony 22 is encouraged to take this time to have a discussion on his talk page regarding how his behavior must change to avoid further blocks. Members of the community are encouraged to join that discussion, with an emphasis on having a calm, reasoned conversation that encourages Anthony 22 and teaches him how to become a productive and non-disruptive editor.

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not as much against this if the community really believes his edits are disruptive. If a dozen editors were doing this, we wouldn't have a problem. Why is it so different if it's one editor? Buffs (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• If a dozen different editors were each making smaller numbers of low quality edits and refusing to engage in discussions with other editors, from a practical perspective they would be harder to notice, and the extra work of dealing with a dozen editors might be seen as too much work. It would still be a problem though; just a harder-to-solve problem.

Let's look at it the opposite way: Every day we get a huge number of editors (IP and registered) who vandalize one page and then disappear forever. The vandalism gets reverted by whoever notices it first and we instantly forget about those editors. What would we do if the exact same number of vandalizing edits were all done by one user? Would the "if it was a thousand editors we wouldn't have a problem" argument save that one editor from being blocked? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, Guy Macon (talk · contribs). Let’s be honest — there probably ARE a dozen or more editors who — cumulatively — cause as much as disruption and produce as much poor quality edits as Anthony22. That actually makes his behavior WORSE, not better. A good faith editor that is as bad as a dozen vandals combined is a big problem. Michepman (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and cross-wiki abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

Can you please block Deerbloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Cross-wiki abuse and starting to harass me. First on fr-wp (fr:Spécial:Contributions/Deerbloat), they made personnal attacks against an admin and an admin candidate, so I blocked they there. Now they come on my en-wp talk page, treating me of "dictator"…

PS: is that the appropriate admin noticeboard to ask blocks like this one?

Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Done, but if it continues m:SRG may be a better option. --Rschen7754 22:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. (I hesitated, for SRG.) Jules78120 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP-hopping phone vandal.

There's been someone going on a bunch of cell phone-related articles making really strange changes. It's been going on for a couple days now, so I've lost track of every IP that is involved, but here are some.

• 107.77.201.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.197.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.197.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:803:0:0:0:66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:BD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:C2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:4E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - this one actually appeared constructive, but is in the same range. Quite a coincidence, if you ask me.

Maybe a rangeblock is needed? That's a pretty big range though. - Frood (talk!) 05:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

AT&T Mobile. I found some other vandalism from 2600:387:1:800::/59 as well, which has been blocked before, so I have range blocked for 1 month. The IPv4 ranges have a slightly better signal to noise ratio, but not by much. As for IPv4, the closest single range that gets all the IPs you reported is 107.77.192.0/20. In that range, I also found 107.77.196.102 and 107.77.198.173, so I'm going to block the whole /20 for a week or so, hopefully that will be enough as there is some non-vandalism from that range. ST47 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre accusations by User:Nocturnalnow

User:Nocturnalnow is a frequent contributor to Talk:Jimbo Wales. For unknown reasons, they have decided that I am responsible for User:Wnt's lack of recent contributions. In an unrelated discussion on Jimbo's talk page they said Wnt is no longer editing and I blame Bitter Oil and other similar mean-spirited and scornful attacks by many others more later toward him for making it reaaaly difficult for editors like me, and maybe WNT to bring out anything outside of the box.. I gave them a chance to withdraw the accusation, but they have decided to double down instead: you scorned and bullied Wnt and done the same with me, including particularly personal and nasty attack you put here on Jimbo's page a few days ago. As far as I can tell, the only interactions I had with Wnt were here and here. Wnt's absence from Wikipedia is probably related to his recent block and has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I am sympathetic to Nocturnalnow's condition but perhaps it is time for them to find a different hobby. Bitter Oil (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I suspect your goodbye message to Wnt is relevant. Odd that you neglected to mention it- you have less than 500 total edits so it wasn't hard to find. --Noren (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you should probably stay of the internet all together. And smash your mobile phone while you're at it. We'll all be better off. This is totally inappropriate. I think I see a WP:BOOMERANG in flight. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 20:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read that sarcastic comment in the context of what I was answering. Regardless, it didn't stop Wnt editing. Both Wnt and Nocturnalnow are conspiracy nuts who regularly spout nonsense on Jimbo's talk page. I will not apologize for treating their paranoid fantasies with disdain. I have no idea why they have been tolerated for so long. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Here, I'll give you a little context. I was replying to what Wnt said ... and just like that Firefox made NoScript stop working by surprise this morning. Note that, surprisingly enough, even the Tor Browser has immediately disabled it (despite relying on it to protect against script attacks) so presumably some folks going to their favorite sites today are going to get a very nasty surprise. For the past couple of months I've noticed that my setting to "delete all cookies" doesn't stop at least one site (The Intercept) from remembering cookie data unless I do it manually with at least one cookie displayed on the menu. I think Mozilla is getting infiltrated by hostile interests -- just like Wikipedia is, and Ecuador for that matter -- and that Brendan Eich was attacked for more than being spotted supporting the wrong side in a ballot referendum. Yet if I can't trust them, who can I trust -- the Microsoft or Google empire? The mysterious Chinese owners of Opera who have terms and conditions to access user data? On the paywalls I suppose we can still try to come up with a way to use the "developer interface" to view individual components for now, until that gets people thrown in jail for hacking. There are lots of places for people to discuss conspiracy theories. A highly visible page on Wikipedia should not be encouraging that. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I guess the real question is, did Bitter Oil ever get into conflicts with Wnt and/or Nocturnalnow with their previous account? If so, then this is an abuse of a clean start. If not, then I'm not sure I care if BO loses patience with Wnt or NN; it's *really hard* to avoid losing patience with them, they say lots and lots of consistently loony things. Luckily most of that is confined to Jimbo's talk page, where nothing of consequence ever happens anyway. I'm guessing BO does not actually care whether NN thinks he drove Wnt off (wouldn't BO think of that as a good thing?), and this is just an attempt to shut NN up because BO finds them highly annoying. And linking to NN's 2.5 year old, now-removed note is kind of a dick move. I vote for Option 1: a pox on both their houses. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• What action are you actually seeking here at ANI, Bitter Oil? Or is venting your frustration good enough? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused by the requested action here. Nocturnalnow's behavior is pretty weird, I admit, but it seems like Jimbo Wales's talk page is a trash can for weird comments and borderline behavior that wouldn't be tolerated in an actual project space. I don't understand why this is the case, but I'm sure there's a good reason for it. But if you set that aside, then it seems like the proper remedy is to admonish these two (three?) users to avoid talking to each other and to move on. Again, maybe I am missing something subtle that explains what the original requester is asking for. Michepman (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Liz: I guess I was just looking for an admin to give Nocturnalnow a stern talking to about throwing around accusations, but I had forgotten about my own comment to Wnt. Even though it is ridiculous, perhaps Nocturnalnow really does think that Wnt has stopped editing because of my comment weeks earlier and not because he was blocked for his behavior. At this point, I'm fine if someone wants to close this. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Presumably what is desired is a remedy for the casting of aspersions, such as a warning from an administrator and a sanction not to repeat similar. On the broader point, Nocturnalnow is unambiguously not here to improve Wikipedia, they just like to hang out on Jimbo's talkpage and spout conspiracist nonsense. No harm would result to the encyclopedia from blocking them. --JBL (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Independent of this, I was thinking of proposing an indef block myself. The current section at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Naming perpetrators is just the latest bizarre thread there trying to prove... I honestly don't know what. Jimbo's talkpage is indeed part of Wikipedia, and his flooding that page with conversations no discernible purpose is extremely disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, what I was trying to bring to light there is that over the years there has been an increasing level of different types of censorship relating to news items and also selective censorship, whereby large chuncks of society, perhaps in media or law enforcement or politics, who are given access to info that the citizenry at large are not. Just by delaying the naming of the perps means that many hard working stiffs who might watch only the "breaking" type news will miss out entirely on that info, and I think that interferes with a nation having an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry" which is what Eisenhower said is necessary for a democracy to function as it should.

Most concerning, we have never before even seen an attempt to block the name of a perpetrator in Wikipedia which we did see this most recent time, which brings my concerns into the are a of we might have a trend developing. There is already more classified info in the USA than unclassified and I worry about any trend which removes information from the masses and gleefully reserves it for certain segments, like news junkies, politicians, media personnel etc. So,The Blade of the Northern Lights, I apologise if I was not more clear in what my purpose was. As far as JBL, we've had some very recent and kind of personal altercations. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

For those who are curious, "altercations" in this case means that I have repeatedly pointed out that Nocturnalnow is a crank on Jimbotalk, not just on ANI: [211][212][213][214][215][216]. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Would it not have been fair to include a couple of my responses? Like this or this? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction:JBL, you overlooked this,this, and this.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I have little patience for editors who spend all of their time on Jimbo's talk page. They seem like they are trying to impress him for some unknown reason or get his attention. Some never edit articles or contribute any time to improving the project. That page should have an edit notice with WP:NOTFORUM in a bright red font. But I don't think I've seen any editor ever disciplined for their conduct there. Most admins have a hands-off attitude to that space and let Jimbo set the boundaries of acceptable behavior there...which he rarely does. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction:Talk!, you overlooked this,this, and this.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, may I ask you to source these claims? You seem quite interested in some principles of Wikipedia, but throughly uninterested in our commitment to verifiability. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Reviewing the situation, which brought me here via eir talk page, it seems quite clear to me that Nocturnalnow is WP:NOTHERE. I think that, at the very least, a reminder would be in order. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• StudiesWorld, THIS (In answer to your question 3 sentences above), is the most important "claim" that I have ever made, i.e."There is already more classified info in the USA than unclassified" (repeated directly above). However, given the source of the info, and its publishing by Stanford, I would not call it a "claim, simply statistical reality. This "claim" is exactly what people out to get me call "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy nut". Using the "conspiracy" word as a shiny object to distract from critical thinking about anything, for some bizarre reason, they do not want people thinking about or discussing.

This leaves us with a real, exciting conclusion. That Peter Galison must ALSO be a conspiracy nut. And if so, then all of the "conspiracy theory" warriors should be raising hell with Stanford and Harvard for giving this "conspiracy nut" a platform for his crazy conspiracy theories.

And then, go after Daniel Ellsberg for publishing the Pentagon Papers which had info long labeled "conspiracy theory" before being published by the reliable sources of the day.

Anybody who backs away intellectually whenever they hear the term "conspiracy theory", I have 1 other term for you to think about...personally.. "brainwashed" by whatever the current propaganda is, like "Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction".

And in that regard, whoever really gives a damn about anything other than peer group acceptance, MUST avoid this little speech by another "conspiracy theorist", Wesley Clark (MUST be one to be saying the Iraq war had NOTHING to do with WMDs, fill stop) recounting events that occurred only TWO WEEKS AFTER 9/11)Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

this is the first interaction between Bitter oil and me, within 1 week of his appearance on Wikipedia just 4 months ago.

It says, in reference to himself "I am new here". Someone smarter than me said "You can tell a tree by its fruit". If you believe he was new here in April 2019, then I suggest you follow the path he set for you here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• 1,084 edits to Jimbo's talk page is absolutely ridiculous. That's more than I have made to WT:RfA over the last 10 years! In fact out of a total 2,530 edits only 570 are to mainspace, the rest being to talk pages. Suggest Topic ban from Jimbo's page so they get on with editing mainspace more constructively or an Indef block for NOTHERE per The Blade of the Northern Lights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, you overlooked this,this, and this.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please take the time to count my previous edits under Mr. Grant Evans and Mr. Grant Evans 2, links at my User page. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

... the last of which were in 2011. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Related: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Nocturnalnow under attack and block threat at ANI for postings here --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Solution, I think. I am taking the friendly advice of Smallbones and Liz and will be 100% staying off of Jimbo's talk page going forward. Best wishes to all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, honestly, Nocturnalnow, I wasn't considering "100% staying off" any one page (which amounts to a strict topic ban) which means that some editor might try to bring you here if you fall back into old habits. I was thinking about just limiting your activity there to ~10% of your editing which still amounts to some participation and allows you to also spend most of your time working on the encyclopedia. I think it was the imbalance of editing time that got people's attention. SPAs (single purpose accounts) are a red flag to many people and it is clear that you do have some interests beyond Jimbo's talk page. Of course, other admins might have different opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

More disruptive edits from 2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 after block expiry

After two prior reports here concerning disruptive edits from this IP range ([217] (not answered), [218] (ten days later)), the range was blocked for two weeks by EdJohnston. In this first week since their block expired, disruptive edits with exactly the same pattern have persisted in almost exactly the same subject areas. Please review their contributions again and take whatever action is necessary. I will also note that they have not responded to any talk page warnings or altered their habits in any way. ComplexRational (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Here are some recent diffs:

• [219] - this is against consensus, and is an incomplete copy, paste, subtract 1 from unbihexium
• [220] - WP:OR
• [221] - more WP:OR
• [222] - even more WP:OR and unsourced speculation

Consistent with previous edits, these lack meaningful edit summaries, and persist despite warnings about disruptive editing, OR, and numerous reverts by various editors. ComplexRational (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reblocked Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 for another three months based on this report. They resumed editing on 2 September and it appears that most of their edits are reverted by others. I'm not aware of any collateral damage from this block. Occasionally they add text to articles but when they do so it is unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yazidis, once again

• Yazidis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And it continues. Now, the editor thinks it's okay to go ahead and add unsubstantial templates to the main page as long as they "explained" the reasons in the talk-pagewithout support (from anyone except two very suspicious editors. The interaction in the talk-page is mostly me trying to get them to explain why it is POV to have divergent 'official' statuses of the Yazidis in the intro (Armenia/Iraq v. Georgia/Kurdistan). Now, it looks like the editor is using sock puppets and meat puppets[223] to gather support for arguments which truly don't make sense and go against common sense.

Twice a week or so some new IP or account start editing this specific page and it's always the same behavior. It's becoming difficult to keep good faith with new accounts and it worryingly feels like I've become the guardian for the page. I've been cleaning up messy and persistent edits since 24 March and the page is currently in its second protection period since May which doesn't seem to work. Admins should look for a new way of preventing vandalism on this page as semi-protections don't work.

I've also opened a sockpuppet investigation because I believe this is the same editor who has been creating dozens of accounts since early this year just for their disruptive editing.(check archive)

--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

For my own part, I've been trying to keep the Kurdish set of articles from getting out of hand the last few months, mostly by fiat, but Kurdish GS would probably be helpful, if someone interested in drafting it. At the very least, let's gauge the support such an idea may have. The problem is that I'm just not that familiar with the material; but regardless, edit warring from new SPA accounts continue to be a reoccurring problem. El_C 00:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

El_C, the editing is mainly limited to this page and perhaps the Pending method or even Full protection should be considered. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know what your problem is. I found the neutrality of the two sentences controversial and also explained it on the talk page. I added two templates and you reverted them 3 times.[224][225][226] Then you wrote on my user talk page that there is a issue with me on the ani board.[227] But I see no problem between us but only the content disput that belongs on the talk page of the article and not here. B9Xyz (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

None of your arguments make sense. That’s the problem. And I’m going to revert any removal of information by you until you have support from other editors who have spent time on related articles and not suspicious accounts like the two which commented in the talkpage.

Read Wikipedis rules before you edit. It’s obviously not enough to explain your controversial edits int the talkpage and then go ahead with your edits. Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmedo Semsurî: judging from the comments on the talk page, more than one person agrees with B9Xyz. Comments like your edit summary "Revert to stable edition before vandalism. You will be revert again and again until you return to the talk-page and make real arguments and not really on bizarre arguments which go against common sense and relying on suspicious accounts doesn't look good." are against WP:CIVIL. Calling a good faith edit vandalism, even if incorrect, is unnecessarily hostile/personal. The same applies to other edit summaries. Lastly, "reverting to the stable version" can come across as highly dismissive of well-founded concerns (again, even if incorrect). WP:STABLE explains why you shouldn't use this as an argument in the manner which you're going. Buffs (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Related issue: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali

There are apparently other potential issues I was unaware of. Requesting an admin to investigate. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Protection up'd to extended-confirmed. I would rather new SPA editors or dormant accounts restrict themselves to the talk page and to edit requests, for now. El_C 11:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

El C, what you'd "rather" have happen is irrelevant. EC protection is supposed to be limited to pages where "semi-protection has proven to be ineffective...to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles..." Only one person is editing that this applies to. If you disagree with them, so be it, but you can't just decide you want people to discuss more and give edit rights to one "side" of a discussion. That isn't what ECP is for. Buffs (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If checkuser comes back positive (see above), then ECP should be removed and reinstated to prevent persistent sockpuppetry, not "pushing discussion to the talk page". I stand by my assessment that this is not a valid rationale, even if ECP is warranted. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have had too much disruption and socking in these articles, so I stand by my decision, but another admin is free to undo my upping of the protection without needing to consult me in any way. El_C 22:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why not ECP both the article and the talk page for "persistent sockpuppetry"? Driving sockpuppets (if that's what they are) to the talk page is just another forum for trolling. It doesn't address the root problem, it just pushes it elsewhere. Your logic on your rationale is baffling. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with User:El C that EC protection of Yazidis is a reasonable step. There is a large participation of editors there with a short track record. It is impractical to assess large numbers of accounts for sockpuppetry, but the 500-edit limit helps to tilt the balance against success for would-be sockpuppets.
• The question of whether Yazidis are Kurds might benefit from an WP:RFC.
• It may be worth exploring whether Kurdish general sanctions should be authorized. Recently new sanctions were created at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics which is a clear step forward, given the problems which have occurred in that topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: My issue is not with the ECP itself being enacted, but the given rationale and lack of application to the talk page. While this rationale is lacking (and the manner in which it's been done doesn't lend itself to actually solving the problem...it's just now on the talk page), other Admins are putting ECP down with no rationale whatsoever. Buffs (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: Thanks for the support. Personally, I could make 500 edits tomorrow and continue to work on the page because more than one person agreed with me on the talk page. But it does not work if admins stay out of the discussion and prefer to agree only with extended confirmed users instead of acting neutrally. B9Xyz (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: From WP:ECP "Extended confirmed protection...should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles not covered by Arbitration Committee 30/500 rulings." From the SPI, these seem to be valid IPs/New Users with various points of input. Our rules have to mean something. ECP is not to be applied in this manner. Conflict WILL happen. We need to focus on behavior issues/remedies for individual users rather than shutting down editing for all but the veterans. This is unfair to the noobs and runs against our own procedures. "I want more discussion on the talk page" is NOT a valid rationale for invoking ECP. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Ortizesp and page moves (again)

Following an earlier ANI discussion, Ortizesp (talk · contribs) was topic banned for 2 months from 23 June to 23 August by @Kudpung: from making page moves. Shortly after this, @JJMC89: confirmed to Ortizesp that "using WP:RM/TR is not permitted". Immediately after the topic ban was implemented, Ortizesp arguably breached the spirit of it with edits like this and this in which Ortizesp attempted to rename the articles without moving the pages. @Primefac: seemed to agree that this violated the spirit.

Immediately upon the topic ban expiring, Ortizesp (inappropriately IMHO) added a whole bunch of articles to WP:RM/TR. This was partially reverted by @Ahecht:, but not before some pages were moved (since reverted by @Anthony Appleyard: as confirmed here). Ortizesp's conduct has created a lot of unnecessary work and headaches for multiple other editors.

I remain convinced that Ortizesp's competence and attitude towards page moves and article names is entirely unsuitable. I suggest a new, indefinite topic ban from moving pages without using RM (limited to 1 discussion per 24 hours) or an IDHT/CIR block. GiantSnowman 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll chime in to say that the move requests were sloppy at best. Most were simple moves to an unused title that shouldn't have been at "Technical Requests" in the first place since there was no technical reason that Ortizesp couldn't have moved them. Of the remaining ones, most had a rationale of "WP:COMMONNAME per refs", but many had no refs in the article using the desired target name. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Explain to me why these were sloppy requests? If you click the external links or references, almost none of them would use the full legal name of these persons, and instead uses the shortened one's. I put these all into technical requests to avoid these issues, i figured it's the patrollers responsibility to move open up discussions as required. Moreover, you sited WP:NATURALDIS for leaving these at pages other than their WP:COMMONNAME. I instead was looking at WP:NCSP, where disambiguating is done through parentheses. For example, I don't think it makes sense for the player only known as Samir, to be placed at page Hélder Samir Lopes Semedo Fernandes - this isn't useful for anyone trying to find the page. I'm trying to follow the rules, and following previous advises to use WP:ANI wp:RM (wp:RM was clearly meant, confirmed elsewhere --Doncram (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)), so let me know what I'm doing wrong.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been using the 'technical request' function, which is not if you just think the name should be changed - as its name suggests it is for technical moves, for example if you are undoing a dodgy page move but cannot because you do not have sufficient rights. You have been gaming the system (innocently or not). How many articles have you moved using that page as you have admitted here? You have been told repeatedly in the past to use Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move on the article talk page, but you have not done so. GiantSnowman 17:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I was advised to use WP:RM, and not specifically Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. I admit error on my part, but from genuine misunderstanding rather than maliciousness. If I have to incur another ban, so be it, but I hope you can see how confusing this is from my point of view.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban, including the "renaming" without moving, like GiantSnowman et al suggested violated the spirit of the ban. - Frood (talk!) 17:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

*Support Indef TBAN with escalating sitebans for non-compliance (starting with 72 hours). The indef topic is fairly clear, given multiple either basic failures or willful evasions. From the evidence stated, the CIR lack isn't so broad that they can't edit anywhere competently. As such, aggressively forcing out of this sphere might serve. We'll see. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't interpreted the TBAN to prohibit talking about page moves. The previous discussion has now been hidden. I oppose that aspect of the TBAN. I may tweak my thoughts depending on the outcome of a discussion below. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Didn't want to re-factor the above, so I've struck it and wrote a new one at the bottom Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban - IMHO CIR/IDHT blocking right now would be excessive given he's not a pain in the ass anywhere else on the project .... but I certainly agree with Nosebagbear longer blocks should occur the moment he breaches the TBAN but I'm sure Ortiz can now see the error of his ways and I'm sure he won't breach the TBAN. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban I have removed all of Ortizesp’s requests from WP:RM/TR because they do not have a snowball’s chance to occur. In fact, Ortizesp should not even be allowed to add move discussions on talk pages or use {{db-move}}, nor ask other users to move pages for him on their user talk pages, because many requests might be closed per WP:SNOW. Also, we should mass revert all of his moves, and delete all of his open move requests that do not already have support votes. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Per GiantSnowman Support topic ban. I really think this is proper to dissuade the user from such actions that disrupt the encyclopedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban on moving pages per GiantSnowman and per the evident ineffectiveness of the time-limited ban, but I do not support a ban from page move discussions. All bans of this sort should be indefinite until the user demonstrates familiarity with article titling policies and successfully appeals. Ortizesp could demonstrate this familiarity by using the process for potentially contentious moves and accepting feedback while refraining from moving pages themselves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. This seems somewhat unfair. The user is criticized here partly for their using technical move requests rather than directly moving pages when they could have done so. Seems to me they were being appropriately conservative about not embarking on making page moves directly, but rather asking for someone else to consider the moves and make them or not. This is in good faith and in spirit with them returning, humbly, to the area again. Yet they are being blasted on both sides, for engaging in the area again and for not going far enough. I agree that it would have been more correct for them to have made regular, non-technical wp:RM requests, and they have been advised about that here, so they should only do that going forward. Basically, Ortizesp, I think the community feels you haven't proved you really have mastered this area, so you should assume that any move you'd want to make is at least potentially controversial, therefore you should use the regular wp:RM request method. Technical requests are just for obviously uncontroversial moves which just cannot be implemented by yourself due to technical reasons (like there having been a previous move); actions of several here are saying many or all of your recent such requests are in fact not obvious. I think Ortizesp understands this now. Given the feedback here, they should be even less confident in their judgment on moves, so they should only use the wp:RM process for potentially controversial moves. And to avoid burdening the community, they should only make one or two such requests at a time (i.e. during each 7 to 10 period it takes for these to be resolved), and they should pay attention and learn from the consensus decision processes. But they seem not to have been malicious at all, and they are trying to learn and trying not to cause difficulty. Ortizesp should proceed slowly, and be allowed to continue to learn. This is all fine. Live and let live. It is very costly and usually very mean, IMHO, for Wikipedia to impose punishments on editors (meaning the costs to general goodwill and to community-building, as well as administrative costs); here it seems not necessary to do so. --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose ban - I think that it would be okay to restrict him from making page moves, but I think that telling him that he can't even talk about page moves as part of the ordinary course of discussion seems overly punitive. I think the suggestions raised by User:Doncram are wise and judicious, and should be adopted instead. Michepman (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose ban – It looks to me like he could use some coaching about how to approach page moves. Someone should volunteer to mentor him or otherwise help, instead of just slapping him down. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - What Doncram says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - This looks to me like a case of misunderstandings rather than maliciousness. After the topic ban was up Ortizesp used WP:RM as instructed, and per his note above simply misread and used the wrong section there. I would like to advise Ortizesp to slow down on these kinds of changes, taking appropriate time to make sure each edit (or proposed edit) is accurate, and echo Dicklyon above that it would be nice if someone could actively support them rather than continually threatening bans. Sam Walton (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment/Suggestion - @Doncram: raises some interesting points. But I'm also concerned about him clogging up WP:RM, as with the hoard of TRs. Do we think an alternate limit of 1 request every 24/48 hours, always to be made to the WP:RM#CM, no direct moves allowed, talking about others' proposed moves is fine? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

To clarify my original request - I did not request (and nor do I want to) a ban from using 'standard RM' (starting a discussion on the talk page using the appropriate templates so it is listed). The opposite in fact - I have repeatedly encouraged them to do that, but they have failed to do so. However, I agree that a limit of one listing every 24 hours is appropriate, to avoid dozens of requests being made at once. GiantSnowman 11:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I think some of us were alarmed because of the suggestion above that User:Ortizesp be prohibited from even discussing page moves on user talk pages and that everything he has done so far be automatically reverted, which seems to me to be overly punitive and needlessly harsh. A more modest limitation on the frequency of page moves and an encouragement that he reach out with any questions on the procedure seems much more reasonable. Michepman (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef TBAN with provisions - I still support an Indef TBAN on moving pages himself, along with escalating sitebans for non-compliance. Going with allowing rate limited (1 per 24hrs) requests to Controversial moves at requested moves (no use of TR). No limitations on discussing page moves. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about the need/usefulness/fairness to put a ban into place. This is effectively ONE incident, i.e. they have one-time created a bunch of move requests, about which they are hereby getting feedback that others do not agree those are obviously valid and feedback that creating multiple move requests causes work for other editors and therefore they should only ever make move requests at a very slow pace (slow enough to learn from the process). I disagree with suggestion they should create one move request per day, because that is too fast... there is no opportunity to learn from the 7 or 10 process on the first request, before forming the second request. Again it is costly and mean to impose topic bans, IMHO, and it is not necessary here. Consider this whole ANI proceeding to be ONE instance of giving the editor some feedback. Back off, i say. --Doncram (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Doncram. Buffs (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Can an uninvolved admin please review and close this? GiantSnowman 11:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Can an uninvolved admin please review and close this? GiantSnowman 09:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef TBAN from moving pages. I can't close this because I closed it last time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN from moving pages. Clearly a case where a sanction was too short and it accomplished virtually nothing because of that. We need to nip this in the bud, and the editor needs to do something else with his wiki time. Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)