Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever

I have a significant concern that User:CheatCodes4ever is not competent and should be blocked. This user has been around for two years - originally under a different username, which they abandoned because they "...had all sorts of troubles with it". They have been editing as CheatCodes4ever since October. Their talk page is a sea of warnings, deletion notices and attempts by a variety of editors to guide and help them. They continually create articles about clearly non-notable subjects, without proper sourcing. A few examples: Draft:Drake(Bart Baker song), Draft:Tom Thum, Theme music from Peppa Pig, Draft:So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2017 + The Best of 2016, Bing Bong Christmas, Draft:Jessie Paege and the genuinely ridiculous Peppa Pig (British singer and rapper) (deleted). There are dozens more, many already deleted.

Huge amounts of time and effort have been put into trying to help this editor understand the key concepts of notability and reliable sources, by many editors. Yet they have failed to grasp even the basics of these core policies, as evidenced by the recently-created Angela (character). This article is currently at AfD and their comment at the discussion is illuminating, given the problematic sourcing and lack of notability of the subject: [3]. After two years of heavy editing, and repeated coaching by dozens of experienced editors it is reasonable to expect that CheatCodes4ever would understand these concepts; clearly they do not.

The energy sucked up in dealing with this user is an unnecessary distraction for many editors, and the damage they continue to cause to Wikipedia is significant. As @Robvanvee: noted two days ago "We are going to end up at ANI very soon at this rate. Your aversion to sourcing is highly disruptive". I'd like to call out the very significant work Robvanvee has done to try to help CheatCodes4ever, without success. Almost certainly this is a younger user, given the subject matter involved, but enormous reservoirs of WP:AGF have been drained. I don't think this user is competent enough to continue editing. Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In this diff, CheatCodes4ever says the previous account was Money12122 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the previous account (CheatCodes4ever also edited Money12122's talk page: [4] and there is meaningful editing overlap between them). I had avoided naming the previous account here to avoid any possibility of outing them, in an overabundance of caution. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support Regrettably, I have to agree with Mirror here. I had actually contemplated reporting CheatCodes here for competency earlier this month after running across some of their drafts. While they seem to be trying, they are just not getting it, despite many folks attempts to explain how Wikipedia works. However, the recent thread on their talk, User talk:CheatCodes4ever#I'm retiring gives me slight pause. If they are retiring, perhaps a block is unnecessary. Or, if they are willing to step away from drafts and just work on articles, they may be able to learn the ropes. Drafts are a very difficult place for folks to edit, and many people who are bad at drafts do perfectly well at editing in other places. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, CaptainEek. I too had seen their stated intention to retire, and like you I thought that could be the best outcome. Unfortunately, they decided the rescind their retirement on the same day: (note the edit summary) and continued on editing. They have been asked multiple times to stop creating Drafts, and like almost all the other advice they've received, they haven't been able to take that on board. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Their unretirement is not surprising, given that they created this account less than two hours after rage-quitting at their previous account. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I ran across this editor after their creation of Peppa Pig (British singer and rapper), which also led to finding this ridiculous edit. Despite other editors' efforts, this appears to be a WP:CIR issue. The article Angela (character) and draft Draft:Jessie Paege are indicative of the typical non-viable content created by this editor. Despite other editors' efforts to educate this user on policies and guidelines, this seems like a time sink, and allowing them to continue to edit seems like a net negative to the project. Even if a block is not the ultimate result of this report, preventing this editor from creating content in the Article and Draft namespaces would be the minimum sanction that is appropriate here. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, it’s CheatCodes4ever. I would like to have a fresh start and stop making articles that are rejected. I also will not edit Wikipedia without sourcing what I write. I will not make any more articles till I have figured out how to make one for something notable. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No – no more new accounts. That would be evading scrutiny. Just stick to this account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block and be clear that the block applies to the person, not the account. That's always the case, but I'm concerned, given the above comments about a clean start, that this user won't understand that. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That's actually the main reason why I'm not certain that blocking is the best idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block As someone who has spent much time trying to help this person, it is very clear to me that they are obsessed with creating new articles (in this case, for want of a better word, as 5-worded poorly sourced stubs hardly constitute articles), perhaps hat collecting and are not interested in learning in any way despite the attempts of several of the above editors. As has been mentioned, I too think this editor fails to grasp the gravity of the situation and may possibly believe creating a new account will refresh the issue so that may also need to be addressed. Robvanvee 13:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It would appear that previous concerns of this editor creating a new account to have a "fresh start" are legitimate. Could any involved admin see here please. Robvanvee 06:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP as an attempt to evade scrutiny (albeit a rather poor one). Per WP:CLEANSTART, the existence of this discussion precludes this user from such a clean start. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - First of all, when I said have a fresh start, I didn’t mean create a new account. I meant have a fresh start with CheatCodes4ever. Also, I am not using that IP address, that is not me. But I’m retired now, so I guess you don’t care. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Also, when I created, Peppa Pig (British singer and rapper), that was not a hoax. Peppa Pig has started a singing career. Maybe I should have created a page for her as a character and mentioned her singing career and discography. I know she is not a real person. I was portraying her as that because it is less confusing (if I am referring to a musical artist). That also should explain by edit on Peppa Pig. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Block - a review of the two talk pages show no progress up the learning curve. The above comment shows a complete lack of WP:CLUE. Someone used the term "time sink" above. That fits. He's been around almost two years and still doesn't know to sign messages. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban on any edits besides completing WP:The Wikipedia Adventure or using the helpme template on their user talk page to ask for help with the Wikipedia adventure. After that, topic ban on article space until they make, say, 50 successful edit requests. Violation of the topic ban should result in an immediate indefinite block. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Also open to a three year block Rather than indefinite, I think maybe waiting until they're older might actually sort some things out. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block for minimum 30 days. The editor is back editing again after only a 3-day retirement (and this is after two previous retirements). Upon end of the block, I would support the topic ban suggested by Ian. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban per Ian.thomson; this will both enable the community to establish CC4E's competencies and prevent any major disruption while doing so. Notwithstanding this. ——SN54129 17:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban per Ian.Thomson. If this was a brand new editor I would feel differently, but 2 years is enough time to get a handle of the core mechanics of Wikipedia. Per his user page he is only ten years old -- I don't necessarily have a problem with young editors but in some cases an editor lacks the maturity and skill to contribute and their work may require an unnecessarily high level of scrutiny. In this case, the quality of the work is fairly low and the rate of basic mistakes is extremely high, making him a "time sink" as someone above mentioned. There's no sign that the mentoring and support that he has received so far has helped, so I think the next reasonable step is to restrict him from editing and give him time to mature. Michepman (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block I am unsure if incompetence per se is a reason for he/she/anyone to be blocked. I stand to be corrected though, as I don’t know for a fact if/not such policy/policies exists or not. I see Robvanvee’s concerns & completely understand his stance/rationale as he rightfully claims this user has been here for over two years & still is finding it hard to carry out very basic things (signing his comments) being the most bizarre & absurd. So I’m inclined to think three things, either this user is an outright troll, a slow learner by default in real life, or imho which I believe may be the issue here & why i’d endorse a block is that this editor may be very very young, emphasis on the “very” “very” it is sad things have to happpen this way seeing as a good number of established competent editors we have today were at some point quite incompetent/&disruptive in their early days. Two years in actuality can be seen as relatively new but unfortunately I can’t comprehend how handling basic responsibilities such as signing your own comments should be difficult for him/her. Celestina007 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I have my doubts as to whether they are as young as they say they are. While their incompetence could be attributed to age, this would suggest that an 8 year old started editing and getting involved with Wikipedia's back pages. At age 8? Even at the claimed age of 10 with all of their failings I still find it hard to believe that these edits and edit summaries are those of a 10 year old. I could be wrong and it may not really matter as competence is competence and I'm seeing very little of it. Robvanvee 19:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

And he continues to submit drafts that are very poorly and minimally sourced, wasting reviewers' time. There's no sign of improvement to his editing, although he's not as rude or defensive in responses as he was previously. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

While I pretty much agree, I don't know that it's unlikely that an 8 year old would get interested in editing and the back pages. I was only a little older when I first started using the talk pages. Maybe in a few years they'll have developed greater competence, or maybe a mentor would be interested in taking them on. But otherwise I agree it doesn't seem like their edits are going to improve for the time being. Darthkayak (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is more proof that he just does not understand even after everything he has been told, which means these poor drafts will continue to be submitted and will continue to be rejected. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

And yet more, User:CheatCodes4ever/PP2 that was moved from draft and shows a complete lack of understanding of critical content policies. This edit tries to source that an EP is an album to a Spotify page that doesn't describe it as an album. This edit folds an AfD tag into a multiple issues tag. And many more since this thread was opened; CheatCodes4ever continues to create bad articles and edit disruptively, with little or no evidence of any learning. There is clear consensus for action above, for a block and/or @Ian.thomson:'s suggestion of a topic ban. Is it possible for an admin to move this forwards to action? Many thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block - A lengthy or indef block is called for here, as I see it after reviewing the Talk pages of their two accounts, which, as noted above, show no sign of improvement. The bogus resignations are also a factor. At some point we have to recognize that enough is enough. That point has passed. We need to act now, and move on. Jusdafax (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Coloursred1 and edits in tennis

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

---

Moved from WP:AN

Coloursred1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

2020 Australian Open – Main Draw Wildcard Entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Take at look at User:Coloursred1 and its vicious editing in Wikipedia that I have seen a rumor in the Australian Tennis Season swing that Maria Sharapova is about to appear in the upcoming Australian Open as the remainder of the Wildcards have not yet announced. Usually, this user continues editing without giving a reason on the subject rumor. ApprenticeFan work 13:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @ApprenticeFan: You did not notify Coloursred1 of this discussion per the instructions.

But yes; that's one helluva unsourced-POV pushing single-handed WP:NOTLISTENING edit war from Coloursred1, with added BLP concerns. ——SN54129 14:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not counting the aggression [5]. And combined with their refactoring [6], [7] [8] of both the OP's comment and my response to it—!!! NOTHERE, anyone...? ——SN54129 14:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have boldly blocked 31 hours for disruption. Feel free to review and modify if needed.-- Deepfriedokra 14:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
• Reply from Coulursred1 I had sources and references, Keroks had personal issues with Sharapova’s doping case and didn’t want her on the list. You should take up an issue with him and not me. Go check it all, it all has sources. Back off Coloursred1 (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)-- Deepfriedokra 14:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm afraid Keroks side of the discussion wasn't that much better.-- Deepfriedokra 14:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra:Note that this user has now resorted to a new account with disruptive sockpuppet edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Long term edit warring, persistent restoration of content without consensus

• Halifax–Dartmouth Ferry Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be one user, operating from multiple IPs. Latest edit summary describes intent. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article. (The IP-hopper said "please do not revert anything of my stuff because I will protect my edits..") There is now an active discussion on the talk page on whether to keep the IP's material. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, more of the same from that IP at Halifax Transit, complete with odd and deceptive edit summaries [9]. I don't know whether another article needs to be locked, or the user slowed down. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've now semiprotected Halifax Transit as well. The user has multiple IPs but their changes are usually tagged with "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit". EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, EdJohnston. It's possible that disruptive edits are baked in, but God help me if I ever take further interest in Halifax Transit. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP jumped from Halifax Transit to the above article after Halifax Transit was protected. As I mentioned at Talk:Halifax Transit, this person keeps adding a section titled "Future Transit System". The content of this list originally constituted a hoax list of bus routes. On December 25, 2019, User:Debdeb18 re-added the list, but with different content. On January 4, 2020, the IP-hopper added the same list with this "new" content. Hence, I suspect Debdeb18 is the IP-hopper. The random list of bus routes added on the ferry article is the same as the hoax version of "Future Transit System". Ben MacLeod (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Oversight at Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Tomis

Please oversight Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Tomis, there is no WP:OUTING so it can be rendered here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing there rises to the level of requiring oversight. I've dropped a NPA warning on the IP's talk page though. Blackmane (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Ok, good to know. On ro.wiki obscenities and personal attacks usually get hidden from public view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Oh, yes, the culprit is 93.122.250.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: there are very specific requirements for Oversight on en.wp, please see WP:OVERSIGHT. Also, Oversight requests should be sent to the oversight request email and not on a very public page such as ANI. Blackmane (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Such can be revdel'd.-- Deepfriedokra 05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I HATted that. Looks like it would require a prohibitively large range block to stop it all. There's no clean version, so I did not revdel so as not to lose the thing, though I guess it should be archived. If 147 has been adequately warned, I could block.-- Deepfriedokra 05:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

147's last edit was January 1st, so I won't block now.-- Deepfriedokra 05:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Doncram's actions ignoring the AfD Result and now edit warring

• Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) went through an AfD and finished as a Keep December 14th, 2019. The AfD the nominator (User:Doncram) was tendentious in the AfD responding to every !voter. And after the AfD the editor redirected the article saying it was discussed at AfD. Now the editor is edit warring to keep their preferred version of the article.

On January 1, Doncram redirected the article saying it was discussed at AfD. For the recored the !vote rationales were 5 keep, 2 redirect. The closer closed this as Keep I reverted the editor's redirect and posted on the article talk page and on the editor's talk page but Doncram quickly erased my comment called me a "jerk" for pinging and said they "disagree" with me (in their edit summary). The editor then went to the article and began erasing references (depreciating the article), here and here. I asked the editor to self-revert on the talk page of the article. I also posted on the editor's talk page however the editor erased my comment again.

I have reverted one of Doncram's depreciating edits on the article, because the editor mistakenly thought they were erasing a duplicate reference. (It is actually two books by the same author). However the editor returned to revert me and erase the reference again. Now putting up walls of text to justify their behavior.

Proposal: I ask that Doncram be instructed to follow the WP:CONSENSUS policy regarding the result of the AfD. I also ask that Doncram refrain from further erasing references on the Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) article and edit warring to their preferred version.

• Support as Nominator. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Umm, this is not worth much discussion. Yes, I redirected the article, and Lightburst disagreed and reverted me, and I did not re-redirect. I directed Lightburst to discuss the content of the article at its Talk page, which is going on, sort of. Lightburst has conveyed in comment there and/or in edit summary that they think an AFD "Keep" decision means an article is locked in terms of its content, which is simply false. Discussion about content, including whether to keep padding added during the AFD process, should take place at the Talk page. I see no reason for discussion about this at AFD. --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A case of WP:IDHT: Lightburst disagreed and reverted me. It is not that I disagreed - it is the result of an AfD and community input. The editor wants the article deleted or redirected and took unilateral action against consensus and now IMO is reverting the article to a version which supports that conclusion. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. This might be worth a look at deletion review; I'm not convinced by the closer's (non-)evaluation of the WP:GEOLAND arguments. I probably would have evaluated that discussion as a consensus to redirect, given the relative paucity of sources for writing an article. Otherwise, I tend to agree with Doncram that there's nothing to do here. The talk page is in use, and an AfD keep result doesn't preclude a subsequent redirect or other refactoring if editors decide that's a good idea inasmuch as the content is still kept, just somewhere else. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, the AFD vote count asserted above is wrong, omitting an explicit "Delete" vote and the nominator's (my) implicit delete vote. And by my count, Lightburst made more total edits in the AFD discussion (13, compared to 12 by me, the deletion nominator). And Lightburst still has not responded in the Talk page discussion to what they label above as "wall of text", in which I explained to Lightburst why I deleted the padding reference, while a couple other editors have agreed there that the deletion is appropriate. I don't know if Lightburst should be scolded or anything for opening this AFD, I personally don't care, but I do believe this section is otherwise ready to be closed. Anyhow, good night to all. --Doncram (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to see here except your end-run around Wikipedia consensus policy. And now you depreciated the article to favor deletion, the guide on lakes will also be ignored. WP:GEOLAND#4. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just point out that the AfD was closed by a sock of a banned user, if that makes a difference. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just going to relist it on exactly that basis. Guy (help!) 13:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Without so much as a deletion review? Great. I will likely never get used to the fact the Administrators sometimes act unilaterally. This was out of order. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, I don't think there's anything wrong with Guy's relisting. The AfD discussion shouldn't have been closed by this user, all he's done is undo that action. (FWIW, I'm concerned to discover that the account in question was closing AfD discussions - I interacted with him a lot over the last few months, and even if he hadn't been socking, I have doubts over his competency in this area.) GirthSummit _(blether) 15:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The question is how else could it have been closed? It was a clear consensus. Also we often have sock participation in AfDs (there more than any other area) and we do not cancel the result two weeks later. There are avenues: Deletion review...or a second AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, sock participation is one thing, but a sock of a banned user closing the discussion? That seems pretty unusual to me. All I'm saying is that I don't think that there was anything wrong with Guy's action, in the circumstances - I'm not aware of a specific policy with regard to AfD discussions, but undoing the actions of the sock of a banned user doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. If someone had taken ownership of the close before Guy had reverted, maybe it was worth just letting that be. But a close by a globally locked sock is completely tainted. In such a case, the only logical WP:NOTBURO way that applies is that the closure can be reversed without wasting time on a dumb discussion because some party is so sure that there is no other way the discussion can be closed yet for some reason is afraid to alone the discussion to run for a bit longer until an editor in good standing closes it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I'll just say that Lightburst has a point here. Why bother relisting now (with the AN/I denizens all about) if the discussion could have been re-assessed? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: sorry but that makes zero sense. As far as we all should be concerned, the AfD was never actually closed. Maybe it didn't have to be relisted, but the close needed to be reverted. The was never any possibility of 're-assessed'. The discussion was never actually assessed because banned socks do not get to close discussions. Anyone who thinks that banned socks get to close discussions shouldn't be at ANI and frankly should be involved in any type of XfD. This discussion was opened by LightBurst, so the only reason "AN/I denizens all about" is because Lightburst opened this IMO pointless ANI. That said, thank you for at least being honest about the point. Lightburst implied there was no way the discussion could be closed in any way, yet somehow was super worried about it being re-listing rather than taken to deletion review even though logically both will lead to the same outcome. As I implied, this made no sense. The most likely reason of course is that Lightburst didn't want the wider attention coming from their own actions. Sorry but you get no sympathy from me if attention from a broader spectrum of participants leads to a different outcome than you'd like. Frankly any contributor here should be happy if a discussion gets wider attention provided it isn't in the form of canvassing or comments which do nothing to achieve a most stable and well supported broad-based consensus (or establish the lack of one). Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping MJL - and your thoughts: ANI is full of snarly editors like Nil Einne. Instead of helping, they come here to growl. I am Oz the great an powerful! Who are you?! I have learned that ANI can be a colossal waste of time and full of frustration. Nil Einne's dislike of my ANI has been noted several times in this thread - lots of assumptions have been made by the editor. Nothing nothing Nil Einne has said here or anywhere in this discussion has been helpful. For instance here is a typical assumption: super worried about it being re-listing rather than taken to deletion review That is not the case at all. I just dislike when unilateral action is taken - we have processes in place. The other assumption is that somehow there is an approval of a sock closing the AfD. It is waste of time to address such an assumption. I am checking out of this ANI now, talk amongst yourselves. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: You know... calling editors snarly isn't the best way to make friends. How about use a more playful term like "grumpy" or something kind like "disheartened"? It's incredibly poor form to make off-hand remarks like you just did (regardless of who it is directed at). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: My preference for the term is simply of pragmatic consideration. The first close was invalid; it's irrelevant how it is invalid. If an admin closed the discussion saying "this is a supervote" then it'd be invalid too. Still, I'd say the discussikn needs to be "re-assessed" just like someone would use the term "re-examined" (First examination not required). To be clear, Lightburst opened up this thread with a specific intent to examine a user's behaviour. This was not an attempt to get wider discussion on the deletion outcome. The point being made was that Doncram ignored the results of an AFD close. That the AFD later turned out to be closed by a sockpuppet is immaterial to the facts at hand; all the actors present thought it was legitimate.
As to my denizens of AN/I comment, I highly encourage you to put yourself in the place of a user who isn't particularly well loved by several participants of this board. Re-opening the conversation at this point makes the AFD an unnecessary outgrowth this one. That takes up editor time best spent else imo. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've seen this done far too often. Someone nominates an article for deletion, fails to get it deleted, so (example [[10]]; in this case "falsification" means not having the supplementary tables of one source and reporting the same information as relied in another source that directly cites it)waits a month so less people are around to notice and tries to eliminate it with a redirect. Should be a bot to detect how many redirects were created by someone who previously nominated the article for deletion and failed. Dream Focus 14:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed this is a very good suggestion and such redirects should be highlighted in some way, for others to partrol. Dream Focus, Please also propose it on WP:VP]] to get this implemented in some way. Much needed. Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• It's far more common for people unhappy with a redirect consensus to sneak back when nobody's watching and restore the redirected article. The D&D enthusiasts in particular are known for this. Your hypothetical bot should be able to cope with this tactic as well, no? Reyk _YO! 14:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Reyk that is also true. I have seen that happen as well. Both are sneaky and against policy. Some sort of page protection might be in order for a time after a clear consensus is reached and an AfD closes. In this case an administrator has now skipped the step of deletion review and relisted this AfD. I am sure they can justify it in their mind, but it is still disheartening. As someone who also participates in many AfDs I am sure you understand the frustration. Not only did I respond to this editor's walls of text in the AfD but I actively improved the article. And when the editor did not get their desired deletion they waited two weeks and then redirected- which if we are being honest, is another way to delete. Lightburst (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you'd be making it more tricky if the proposed bot were having to look for an editor who had initiated an AfD. After all, they could simply undo/redo the redirect while they were logged out, which would defeat it. What you'd probably need to look for is simply an article being converted to a redirect / converted from a redirect where that article had been at AfD in the previous X months. You'd get quite a few false positives, too - any AfD that had been closed as "Merge" would appear when the content was finally merged and redirected. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reyk, I have nothing against a default to protect when an article is turned into a redirect by XfD. Guy (help!) 19:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wish people would use AfD for its originally intended purpose, which is simply to decide whether or not an admin should hit the "delete" button. If the decision is "no" then nothing has changed, and the article can be edited and things like redirecting and merging can be discussed on the talk page in the same way as could have been done in the absence of a deletion discussion. I have noticed that Lightburst has even taken several articles to deletion review recently where he doesn't want deletion and the decision of the AfD was also not to delete the article, but just a different flavour of non-deletion from what that editor wants. It is a colossal waste of everyone's time to discuss issues that don't involve deletion at locations where the "D" stands for deletion. Just use the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I use the forums which are appropriate, and are specifically designed to make the encyclopedia work. Funny that you have no problem with Doncram's obvious circumventing of the rules, and yet you frown on me for using the forums which are allowed. I appealed controversial closures, and lost. I am sorry that you see that as a waste of time. I respected the conclusions of those reviews and did not undo the results. I will still respect you. Wish you would respect that we have rules and avenues to get to the right result here. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well the "rules" in such much are they exist, are that redirects don't need to go through AfD since they are not a form of deletion. There are appropriate forums to discuss redirects proposals and AfD isn't really one of them. This doesn't mean editors should ignore AfD results where the outcome was clearly not in favour of redirecting, but if you're using AfD when all your want is a redirect, you're doing the wrong thing, and I don't see why you respect you. The fact that you're advocating we ignore the fact a globally locked sock closed the AfD, gives us even less reason to respect you. Frankly, I initially had some sympathy with your PoV when I read your first post, but I lost it the more and more I read your followups until this post of yours was the final straw as it were, since you seem to be explicitly advocating misusing forums for the wrong purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just trying to build an encyclopedia. I have wasted too much time on this friction, and I need to stop. Whether you like me or sympathize with me is unimportant. The policies and guidelines are important. And I have done my level best to follow those. I am not advocating we ignore the fact a globally locked sock. But if the closure was correct, then it does not matter. reclose. Instead it is reopened without following any policies. Lightburst (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's a policy that says that if an AfD closes keep, it's not OK to redirect or merge, either BOLDly through the BRD process, or by starting a discussion on the talk page. If you think that's what the rules should be, then propose a change to some policy making it so. But I don't think that's current policy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I often see AfD closers saying "no consensus to delete, merge or redirect can be discussed on the article talk page," or something like that. – Levivich 18:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: The common convention is that redirects are a lesser form of deletion and merges are a lesser form of keeping. In general, I would say that a bold merge is fine in those cases, but never a straight redirect (since the content has consensus for inclusion in the encyclopedia). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

MJL, that makes sense! – Levivich 17:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Then I would take issue with what you claim to be the common convention. Both merging and redirection (but not "delete and redirect") are forms of keeping, because the content is still in the article history where any editor can see it without having to be an admin, and everyone, not just admins, has the technical ability to revert, although it would nearly always be best to hold an article talk page discussion before doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC).

@Phil Bridger: The way I said it is exactly how AfD stats reports it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

How some tool reports it is irrelevant. Articles that are redirected without being deleted first have simply, factually, not been deleted, but edited. It is an action that needs no administrator powers, which editors (such as I) perform regularly without going through an attention-seeking AfD discussion first. I don't understand why so many people don't get that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you would "get it" if you had ever NPP'd a newly created article that is a clear candidate for being turned into a redirect, then seen it being reverted back again and again by the (usually newbie) editor. Being a new article, it will have zero watchers; good luck with any discussion on the talk page. The only way to get a redirect to stick under these circumstances is to boot it to AfD and have consensus put a stamp on it. This is both sensible and standard usage, and I'm getting increasingly ticked off with people who rail against this "misuse" of AfD. It isn't a misuse. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The way to get a redirect to stick in the face of edit-warring when it is obvious or has consensus on the talk page (which can be reached, as it can in a deletion discussion, by a failure to provide reasoned opposition) is simply to ask for the redirect to be protected. WP:AFD has always been for articles that you want to be deleted - the clue is in the "D" in its title. I know that fewer people will see your name about the place if you discuss things on article talk pages rather than very public forums such as AfD, but we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not promoting ourselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice malicious insinuation from someone who seems to spend the majority of their time commenting on absolutely every scrap of text on the drama boards... but suit yourself; the redirect discussion functionality of AfD will continue in absence of your approval, I fancy. Let's keep this more palatable: I am both annoyed and disappointed by that insinuation, and do not intend to engage further on that level. Over and out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As long as you restrict discussions to article talk pages, you're effectively restricting them to fans or wikiproject participants. And they're going to primarily vote to keep cruft as expansive and crufty as possible. That's why some people don't like taking these issues to a wider and more unbiased audience. Accusations of self promotion are just one of many dubious attacks on deletion nominators. Reyk _YO! 12:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Phil Bridger, yet we have redirects for discussion and the like. I don't see a problem discussing a terrible article at XfD and deciding whether to delete, draftify, stub, redirect or keep. It gets more eyes on the article, which is mainly what's needed, and none of the other mechanisms for trying to achieve that have half as much success. Guy (help!) 19:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• (EC) My view: AfDs shouldn't generally be used if the desired outcome is to turn the article into a redirect while keeping the edit history. However if the outcome of an AfD is clear that the article should be kept and not as a redirect, then this should be respected. Since WP:Consensus can change it would be reasonable to open a discussion on the article talk page, or very rarely, to turn the article into a redirect without discussion after a period of time, just as opening another AfD. It's fairly unlikely a month is long enough, just as it isn't generally long enough to open a new AfD.

  If there was no clear consensus on whether the article may be turned into a redirect in the AfD, then it seems reasonable to move that discussion to the article talk page after the AfD closes.

  Care should always be taken when assessing consensus to ensure that the editors were truly opposed to turning an article into a redirect. While it is one possible outcome, since AfDs aren't really intended for discussing turning an article into a redirect, it possible some editors may say "keep" when they wouldn't be opposed to turning the article into a redirect as they don't consider it the best place for such a discussion.

  I have not looked at the particular discussion, so I have no view on whether the AfD was clearly opposed to turning the article into a redirect, for reasons I outlined in other posts, I don't trust the judgement of the OP, and I definitely don't trust the judgement of the banned closer.

  Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, why not? It's a good way of establishing an unambiguous consensus that the topic does not stand alone. Guy (help!) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: As the article is not going to be deleted, there is no need to use an AfD which is explicitly structured to determine if the article should be deleted and therefore only accessible to admins. An RfC can be used and there is no reason why an RfC consensus will be more ambigious. Actually, it may be more ambigious since editors may not properly consider the issue of redirecting the article. (If someone sees an article and the topic is clearly notable, they're probably going to say "keep, clearly notable per the sources" especially if no one has suggested a redirect already.) If AfDs were good at establishing unambigious consensuses on redirection then frankly we should be considering a topic ban on DonCram since they weren't aware that the discussion was never actually closed so they were ignoring the unambigious consensus against a redirect. Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, equally one could argue that the primary purpose of AfD is to decide whether a topic is notable. And that is exactly the nature of such a debate. I have no view on Doncram right now. Guy (help!) 20:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: but plenty of people are saying it is notable, but support a redirect nevertheless which is a key point. Just because something is notable doesn't mean we should have a standalone article about it. Anyway I mostly came back to say that sometimes the WP:Merging process may better than an RfC. The only other thing I'll say is IMO there is an important reason why it's Redirects for discussions but Articles for deletion]. AfD should generally only be used for deletion discussion not more generic discussion on what to do with a page. Better process are available. And there's a key reason here. As a non admin, I cannot boldly delete a page, or undelete it. (I can recreate a deleted page but I should never use any material from the deleted one for attribution reasons.) Admins who can, shouldn't generally bold do so either. However it is fully acceptable to boldly redirect a page or turn a redirect into a full fledged article (or reverse an old redirect) in some cases, in part because from a technical standpoint, the result is very different. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, yes, BOLD is OK, but I don't think we can say that AfD is wrong when redirect / smerge / whatever would be an acceptable outcome, I think a lot of people view redirect as a kind of deletion so prefer to see an AfD debate. I think it's one of those issues on which reasonable people can disagree, Guy (help!) 10:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not impressed with Doncram merging without any attempt at a formal merger discussion, which is what was really needed at the moment. The keep verdict at AFD was fairly strong, so obviously a new consensus was going to be necessary to merge. The problem is that Domcran acts too boldly before undertaking actions that are clearly controversial. Eliteplus (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eliteplus: Thanks for your comments. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I am so confused at all the discussion about a stub article for which there are few sources on the web or in books. And, now there's a relisted Afd. Sure, it could have it's own article, but why is it necessary over having a mention in the Brown County, Minnesota article? (This is a rhetorical question. I see all the points why people want to keep the article.) Just a little gobsmacked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close this thread I've commented above, so won't do it myself, but there doesn't seem to be any need for administrative intervention. The reopened deletion discussion is ongoing, with an unusually high level of attendance: whatever its eventual outcome, I'm sure it will be respected - the continuation of this thread seems to be in nobody's interest. GirthSummit _(blether) 01:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• The editor Continues The editor has continued their tendentious editing at the AfD and in the article. In addition they have !voted at the AfD twice - I struck the second !vote. Furthermore, several editors have tried to improve the article and the editor continues to fillet it. Lightburst (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Girth Summit: No, please do not close the thread until somebody points out to User:7&6=thirteen that the AfD nomination page is no place for extraneous discussions on AfD ethics, a discussion which 13 has already started at the article talk page. Such a thread on an AfD nom page does nothing except defocus discussion from where it should be and unnecessarily personalise a page which is already unnecessarily personalized. ——SN54129 16:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Oh look... I was exactly right about this kind of thing happening, Nil Einne. You see what I mean now? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  @MJL: No not really. Yes there is some unnecessary heat in that discussion. But it also wasn't closed by a sock. Ultimately that's enough to establish it's a better outcome than the alternative. Also, if we want to get technical, despite the unnecessary heat in that discussion, it has way more participation than it did before, and most participants are not taking part in the heat. (Well frankly most new participants came before the heat really developed.) So the likely outcome is a more stable and well supported consensus, or establishing that there is no consensus. Of course, and I can't emphasise this enough. When it is closed, it's most likely not going to be closed by a sock, so by definition, a better outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• The conduct of the AFD participants and their vandalization/Bowdlerization/destruction/rewrite (if we disregard the pattern and timing and WP:AGF) of the article (and what the article is and should be) are pertinent and fair game on this page. I am willing to discuss the merits of edits on the article talk page. But rigging the system needs to be called out at the AFD discussion. As I told User:Serial Number 54129 Do not remove my comments. We all know better.

I did not start this thread. I would not be here, but for User:Serial Number 54129's gratuitous and unsubstantiated accusation. He says I am now involved. And that is my reply. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, you kind of involved yourself by—err—dumping that massive text, all out-of-process-like, on the AfD page. Please remove the level-2 headed thread and continue the discussion either here (if you believe it to regard egregious behavior) or on the talk. ——SN54129 16:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, we could, Girth Summit, but it's an arduous trip from ANI...

Groan. I'm not going to close it Serial Number 54129, but, at the risk of sounding like a patronising ass, I'll suggest that everyone take a moment and consider that we're all snarling at each other over an editorial decision on whether to have a short article about a lake, or just to include the same information in a list of lakes. More than one person hasn't acted perfectly, but I don't think we need any blocks/bans/protection. Don't suppose anyone feels like saying 'fuck it, it's not worth falling out over', and all metaphorically piling into the nearest pub? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk about escalation.

Girth Summit It is quite a shit show. Over small lake out of 10,000 lakes in Minn. Accusations and refactoring of AfD comments, and erasures on the article. Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

To add a cooler-headed perspective to this, I think Warren Zevon presaged the overkill involved here when he wrote Lawyers, Guns and Money See Warren Zevon - Trouble & Lawyers, Guns and Money - David Letterman Show, 1988 April 14, 2011 via YouTube. And as a lawyer and wikipedia editor of 12 years, I know whereof I speak. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, 1988, when in the US the word 'shit' was bleeped even on late night television...--valereee (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• valereee, My potty language demonstrates my frustration. The community here could have considered my proposal. Which was to give the editor a warning. However the community and the ANI board seems to prefer this drama. And now we are heading for some editor to lose their cool and get disciplined over this small lake in Minn. IMO the simple way was to reclose that AfD...and warn this editor not to go against consensus with a redirect, and not to eviscerate an article to favor there desire to redirect. I did not ask that there be any sanctions, blocks, TBAN etc. Then we could all go about our business. But here we are. Lightburst (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: Try not to worry too much. I assure you things will turn up alright in the end. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comment!Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, every time something like this happens it’s “just” over an article about a lake, or a minor fictional character, or a list of left-handed banjo players, or whatever. But these are chronic and ongoing issues. Specifically the attacks on AfD nominations, the brigading, the bludgeoning, the escalating to DRV or ANI, etc. I fear it’s reaching a boiling point. – Levivich 19:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, perhaps there are some underlying issues - but I'm not sure we need to see it as being at boiling point, if we all take a step back. In this thread, and at the AfD discussion, and elsewhere, some people have been getting quite frustrated/angry, possibly to the point of personalising some of the issues (FWIW, I don't count you amongst those people). The issues that you have been describing though are not really what triggered this thread, which was a specific complaint against a specific editor. You're describing a broader issue, and if we are to discuss that, I think it needs to be framed carefully, so that we're not basing it around a particular AfD discussion, or singling out individuals for criticism that's really targeting at the culture more generally. Please read my 'let's go down the pub' comment above as 'let's take the heat out of this particular argument, remember that we're all on the same side really, and maybe have a civil (friendly even?) conversation about it somewhere else'. I'm not sure where that somewhere else needs to be, and I'd be interested in participating in that discussion - but I'd really like it not to be a battleground, if we can achieve that. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Very well, to the pub it is ! :-) – Levivich 21:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit That is why I voted for you. And why I would not vote for certain other axe-grinders. I knew you would make a good admin. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: If Lightburst could restrain himself from trolling editors on their own talkpages—Levivich's, CaroleHenson's and my own, just for three–that would be a start. It would certainly improve the atmosphere around that AfD which LB, while rightfully noting its toxicity, abrogates all responsibility for that ste of affairs. ——SN54129 13:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Now discussion on a talk page is trolling? Here is my discussion on CH talk page Reasonable editors having a rationale conversation. As to your talk page, it devolved because of your aspersions. The same with Levivich, and so I departed those conversations saying we should steer clear of each other. You should refrain from using the word trolling if you do not know the meaning. The above comment by you fits the definition of trolling. Lightburst (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, and as an epitome of trolling, I give you your reply to Levivich below, The only reason you "left" these multiple talk-page discussions-which you started even though the AfD had effectively fragmented over three WP: pages already—is because you realised you would recieve no traction whatsoever. Levivich disected your position forensically: you refused to consider that he made a valid point; you tried to tell me I waws WP:NOTHERE, and I—comprehensively—enjoined accuracy upon you; you tried to bully CaroleHenson (Stop Please leave it be (bolding yours) with some of the most patronising commentary I have encountered in a long time ("cooler heads will prevail"? Really? I think Carole's is one of the most reasonable and coolest-of-heads here). Your repeated demands for good faith—while referring to editor's opinions as idiotic and being axe-grinders—demonstrates nothing but your own depth of good faith. ——SN54129 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nearly Every AFD that the "Article Rescue Squadron" becomes involved in devolves into this kind of bad blood. At least three of them will show up, !Vote "Keep" with some non-rational like "WP:BEFORE" and "WP:NOTPAPER". When the !vote starts going against them they start attacking the integrity of other users. First by pointedly saying something like "I'm going to AGF about your actions" which is a self-contradiction, then when that doesn't work, by throwing away the pretense of AGF and accusing people of intentionally trying to destroy articles. ApLundell (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Provide some concrete examples of your idiotic accusations that Nearly Every AFD that the "Article Rescue Squadron" becomes involved in devolves into this kind of bad blood and attacking the integrity of other users _ the archives are available for all to see. You seem to be just blathering and flailing and you have a friendly audience of other drama seekers who cosign your rubbish. I can provide several examples of your un-collegial following of ARS simply to vote obstinately. Good day! Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"... throwing away the pretense of AGF and accusing people of intentionally trying to destroy articles" can be seen right here in this thread, where 13 writes The conduct of the AFD participants and their vandalization/Bowdlerization/destruction/rewrite, and LB says other axe-grinders. It's hard to go to the pub with people who attack you like that. – Levivich 19:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry Levivich. You are likely on your way to becoming an administrator as you seem to desire. I will be a hard NO !vote based on your irrational statements as of late. You are the axe grinder. I hope you find your way out of this anti-ARS malaise and decide that working together is better than expecting others to catch pearls of wisdom falling from your lips. Lightburst (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, that post contains a personal attack, and to be honest, speculation about someone else's desires and intentions is beneath you. I hope you'll strike it or remove the whole thing yourself. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like my local on a Saturday night. ——SN54129 19:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, so it seems like there is something here that we should talk about. I don't think that this thread is the place to do it though - it's already massively long, and we're not really talking about the thing we started out with. Since the pub seems to have been built at the bottom of a lake, and it's hard to talk with scuba gear in your mouth, here are a couple of 'straws in the wind' ideas on how to proceed:

• If you think these a broad issues with the culture of behaviour within ARS, start a thread at WT:ARS, outlining the concerns, and giving examples of discussions that got heated and unpleasant. Advertise the discussion in relevant places, and see whether we can get a conversation going and build a firm consensus on how to interpret the ground rules for this kind of contentious deletion discussion. I've had some very good interactions with ARS members in the past, including times when they have worked on and 'saved' articles I had nominated for deletion - these things don't need to be unpleasant, but they need a big dose of civility, AGF and general not-being-a-jerk-about-it on both sides. I know the necessary rules already exist, but people are interpreting them in different ways, and a discussion about the problems might go somewhere.
• Or... if you feel there are specific individuals unambiguously breaking rules, then name the individuals rather than addressing this at the entire team of ARS volunteers, and start a new thread here with diffs, which can be considered individually.

That's my tuppence worth anyway. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

There was a recent broad discussion at VPR in November, and ANIs in August and June, an MFD in June, a 2018 ANI, and at least four ANIs and an RFC in 2012, a 2009 MFD (that was the 4th nomination), and a 2007 ANI, among others. I've taken my concerns to specific editors on various talk pages already, and I'm sure things will turn around any minute now. :-) – Levivich 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, thanks for that history, which I was unaware of. I've got some thoughts about some of it, but I probably need to do a bit more thinking, and as I've already said, I don't think this thread is the place for it - I'll probably swing by your talk page at some point. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes to ~1,500 pages using AWB

On 11 December 2019, Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) unilaterally changed ⟨²⟩ to ⟨ˇ⟩ on Help:IPA/Swedish and Help:IPA/Norwegian and made around 1,500 edits to pages that contained the symbol inside {{IPA-sv}} or {{IPA-no}} using AutoWikiBrowser, in spite of MOS:PRON#Other languages' recommendation to discuss changes to IPA keys in advance. Kwamikagami also unilaterally changed ⟨¹⟩ in Swedish transcriptions to ⟨ˈ⟩, although ⟨¹⟩ had been introduced after a discussion months earlier. When asked to point to the consensus for these changes, the user responded, "The consensus is that we use IPA for IPA", without providing any specific policy, guideline or discussion.

Although the introduction of ⟨²⟩ was not based on an explicit consensus either (but discussed and agreed on by two editors nonetheless), the fact it had been in use on so many pages for more than three years illustrates an implicit yet well-established consensus. I asked for comments on this matter at Help talk:IPA/Swedish, pinging ten users who had recently edited or discussed the Swedish guide, and no one has come out in favor of the new ⟨ˇ⟩, while three have explicitly spoken against it.

I would simply apply BRD if the changes were made only to the guides or to a handful of pages, but the sheer scale of them is making me reluctant to revert them and risk inciting a massive edit war. I want to ask whether Kwamikagami was allowed to make these changes without consulting others first and whether they should keep their privileges, particularly AWB. Nardog (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Basically, IPA templates should be in IPA, or they're misleading to our readers. You can always find editors who wish to substitute in-house conventions, but such walled-garden usage is detrimental to an encyclopedia with a world-wide scope. We've long had agreement that digits should not be used for tone in Asian, American or African languages. It's only in a few European languages that spurious IPA tone numbers continue to be used. In this case, several publications of the IPA itself explicitly recommend these characters for the two tones of Swedish and Norwegian. They're dated, but at least they're not actually wrong. I don't see why fixing the IPA to actually be IPA needs prior permission, any more than fixing any other error. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic forum

Actually, no one but specialists has any idea what the IPA hieroglyphics mean, and they shouldn’t be cluttering up article leads in the first place. EEng 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC) How do I upvote this insight? WilyD 08:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Surely you mean Haʊ du aɪ ʌpvoʊt ðɪs ˈɪnˌsaɪt? EEng 13:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC) EEng, when I started to learn English (at age 9 or 10), my textbooks used IPA, and we had some lessons in how to read IPA symbols. I have also never used a French dictionary without IPA. I don't really see how you can learn how to pronounce foreign words (especially in languages that do not have a good correspondence between sound and spelling) without something like IPA, or learning language-specific extra letters like hanyu pinyin or bopomofo. Just a non-specialist opinion... —Kusma (t·c) 13:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of such large-scale changes when the talk page already made it clear that people would have disagreed. Then again, I hesitate to be too critical of Kwami's mass edit. If an editor is willing to discuss the matter, presumably they're also willing to fix their own large-scale changes if discussion steers towards a consensus they initially disagreed with. AGF prompts us to believe this about other editors without clear evidence to the contrary. I have seen a number of instances when Kwami implemented a consensus that they personally disagreed with.

If other people are expecting to punish Kwami for an epic game of BRD or, even worse, to explicitly get them to say that they'll self-revert if consensus goes against their stated position, I would hope that we can at least acknowledge that this carries with it a pretty strong assumption of bad faith. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: You've had your say at Help talk:IPA/Swedish, and it is clear you stand alone. Repeating it here, which is a place to discuss not content but conduct, is not going to move the needle in your favor. Can you make a promise not to edit war if I reverted your bold edits in honor of WP:BRD, or, better yet, revert them yourself as Aeusoes1 suggested? (Indiscriminate replacement in IPA-sv wouldn't do it as some instances are of Finland Swedish, which still must use ⟨ˈ⟩.) Nardog (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor won't delete company page

Hi,

My name is Shira and i'm head of marketing for Comsec. I have followed the deletion request procedures twice, and the editor wrote: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Comsec Consulting. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Our management team is not interested in having a Wiki page for Comsec, which is why i asked for it to be deleted. I have spent a few hours trying to see how i can communicate this request otherwise. As a private company, we have to have the option to do. Can i please ask for someones help on this?

Thank you very much. Best, Shira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.30.250 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is not how deletion works at Wikipedia. In your previous two attempts to delete the article, you first blanked it (which is disruptive, and doesn't delete it anyway) and then used the PROD template, which is only for obviously non-notable articles. The valid reasons for deletion are at WP:DEL#REASON and do not include the subject's wish to do so. You could try WP:AFD, but I'd suggest, looking at the article, that it is probably notable per WP:CORP and would not therefore gain consensus for deletion. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I assume this is about Comsec Consulting. To be blunt, we don't really care what your management team is or is not interested in. As a private company, you do not get to dictate what others write about your company, with a few very limited exceptions relating to defamation and similar, but simply writing about the existence of your company clearly doesn't qualify as defamation. In other words, as a private website, we get to chose what we do and do not write about. Once a WP:PROD has been removed, you do not get to add it back. Your only option is to take it to WP:AFD. But if you take it to AFD with the reasoning that your management team doesn't want the article, it will fail. I'm not certain from the article whether or not your company meets our WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (organisations and companies). Although the sourcing seems limited, I do see some info suggesting there may be enough reliable secondary source coverage. Regardless, this is best assessed by someone familiar with our sourcing requirements, not by you someone with a WP:COI who only wants to page gone because your management team doesn't like it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, this is biting the newbies and is far too aggressive. Please stop. DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not see that Nil's edit was biting or aggressive, but simply spelling out that encyclopedia articles are not part of anyone's marketing programme so are not under the control of their subjects. It's better to say this clearly rather than string people along with euphemisms only for them to eventually find this out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comsec Consulting, courtesy of User:Michepman. ——SN54129 13:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A few years ago, an individual successfully had a bio article of himself deleted. The individual was a (by then) known critic of Wikipedia. PS - Can't remember the fellows name. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP applies to critics of Wikipedia too?!  ;) ——SN54129 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The fellow founded Wikipedia Watch, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, Daniel Brandt. Guy (help!) 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BIODELETE, biographies of living persons are basically the only area where the wishes of a subject comes into consideration when it comes to article deletion, in a very limited set of circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I find it interesting that the page was originally created by User:Shar1R [11], an editor who's main other contributions seem to have been creating an article on another Israeli company GigaSpaces [12] and one of their products Cloudify [13], and some Israeli band Nikmat HaTraktor [14]. Suffice it to say, this wouldn't be the first time some company had once thought it a good idea to pay for an article to be written about them only to later come to regret it. Although if this was what happened here, I don't really see anything that bad about the article, regardless of whether the info in it is completely up to date with what the company does now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment These issues are solved so easily just by opening an articles for deletion discussion. Shira, we keep articles where notability can be demonstrated. If enough editors can reach a delete consensus, the article will be deleted. Eliteplus (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well depends what you mean by solved I think. From the way the AFD is heading, I don't think the article is going to be deleted. And so given the OP's previous comments, I'm not sure if they would consider it an acceptable solution. Still let's hope they take our counsel onboard and accept that's how things work here even if they're not happy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Amirhosein Izadi

I am surprised that my proposal to ban User:Amirhosein Izadi on account of hoaxing was archived without being refused or heeded. A subsequent sockpuppet investigation had a checkuser request declined, but hoaxing is still a bannable offense, right? I saw no counterarguments being made in the last discussion in regards this user being a hoaxer. He's done this multiple times and has voiced no intention to stop. So, again, i believe it may be necessary to block this user to prevent him from creating further hoaxes. Once he's stopped from creating further hoaxes i'd like to go through his articles and see what is and isn't a hoax. Please consult Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Turkmen Sahra and the previous ANI thread as to how i've deduced this user is a hoaxer. I find this case bizarre, never before have i seen an unopposed proposal be archived and ignored. Koopinator (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that your thread was archived due to inactivity rather than because an admin declined your request; I think WP:ANI has an automated script which does that. I think one of the issues also is that the user (Amirhosein Izadi)) stopped editing a week ago so the situation would appear at first glance to be less urgent. In the mean time, I think it would be helpful to go through his contributions to identify potential hoaxes. I have tagged one article already as a hoax which you identified, and I am willing to take a look through his history later today to see if I see anything obviously fake. Michepman (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, my first ANI thread was created only a few hours after that user's last edit. The only reason i'm now creating this thread on a week-long inactive user is because the admins have been taking their sweet time with taking action. I think it's better for me to get to work with these hoaxes now rather than wait for the day that the admins actually enforce this consensus. Hopefully that day comes sooner than later. Koopinator (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koopinator: in my experience, just grab the nearest admin and ask for their comment. Also, the less words you make people have to read, the better. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but have been noticing this case as it develops. Archiving is automatic; it appears your thread was simply overlooked. Good on you for bringing it up again. I support an indefinite block on the hoaxer. If no admins respond, as MJL said, you may have to ask someone directly. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: can you please look at this thread and take action? Koopinator (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Previous Thread: I think Archived here. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC) someone erased this comment twice - not sure why - please explain.

• I removed it twice because the OP linked to it in their initial post, so your link is unneccessary. Surely you know how to look at the revision history of this page to (a) see it was I and (b) see my edit summary explaining why I removed it. But all that for absolutely nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Doh...Thanks, by the time I look for the diff, there are always so many new posts that I could not be bothered to weed through them all. I just kept reposting. I also did not see that the OP included it and that is my mistake. Lightburst (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Viewing the user's fawiki contributions shows "07:28, 10 December 2018 Sunfyre blocked Amirhosein Izadi with an expiration time of indefinite". @fa:User:Sunfyre: Would you mind outlining what the problem was at fawiki? Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's quite concerning. FWIW, I did see the earlier thread. Did not comment at the time in part because what I saw was suspicious but also quite difficult to assess given the obscurity of the subject matter of what they were dealing with. They failure to offer us any explanation was not re-assuring, still I also did not want to kick out an editor who may be an expert on an obscure non English subject area just because of a misunderstanding. While I can't say for sure, I wonder if other than the time of year others also felt the same, hence the limited response. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: At this point i don't think there's any remaining doubt as to this user being a hoaxer. Consider the article Ice Flower (album) by the same creator. "Ice Flower has been featured in several prestigious publications, including the Los Angeles Times" - this sentence is sourced to this article, freely available online. The reference looks convincing, it is from the right publication and the title looks related to the subject matter, the only problem is the source's text does not make a single mention of an album called ice flower. It is deliberately intended to deceive the reader into thinking the reference & info is legitimate when it isn't - a textbook definition of a hoax. I see no reason to keep this thread open or keep this user unblocked. When i first failed to find the sources, my mind went to the Bicholim conflict investigation from 2012. In that case, the AFD immediately led to the article being deleted in a day and the editor being banned within a week. I wish this investigation would've gone that smoothly - that there's wouldn't be a need to wait a week on my unopposed AFD, that i wouldn't have to make 2 ANI threads, no separate sock investigation, no cross-wiki shenanigans, no admin user saying it could all be a misunderstanding and that jazz. Koopinator (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The block log entry at the user contribution page at fa-wiki [15] contains a Persian word with a link. That word put into Google Translate comes out as "Sabotage". It links to a policy page [16] that is apparently equivalent to our WP:Vandalism, per both putting the top of it into Google Translate and the interwiki link. That page of ours does talk about hoaxes. This is all very consistent with this editor being a hoaxer. I am going to notify Sunfyre on their talk page on fa-wiki to ensure they see this, in case that link did not generate a ping. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Thanks. My ping did not work. I forgot that a normal User:Example link is needed to generate a ping, not fa:User:Example. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• User:Amirhosein Izadi (User:Amir.85) is WP:SNEAKY: The user is suspected of creating false articles.--Sunfyre (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Thank you Sunfyre. Here is Sunfyre's reply to me at fa-wiki: [17] The translation (with some commonsense tweaks) reads:
  • @Crossroads: Hello, User: Amirhosein Izadi, User: Amir.85, He was making inaccurate information with both accounts, so he was denied access. (en: WP: SNEAKY), For more on this, read this and this. - SunfyreT
  • Each "this" gave me a link. Each discussion can be pasted into Google Translate and read. They are not long, but they establish that this user's content is not trustworthy and most editors were saying his content should be deleted.
  • This all supports that both Amirhosein Izadi, and the account Sunfyre has just mentioned, Amir.85, should be blocked indefinitely. The Amir.85 account does have 2 edits on en-wiki from just the last few months the latter part of 2018, [18] so it should be included.
  • I concur that this user's content is not trustworthy and should be deleted. All of it. Only exception should be if someone else has personally verified it, but that won't be the case generally, as most of the sources are in Persian and it is too hard to check each piece. We already know this user is a liar, and even if there is content that is partly true, it is still totally misleading. I know Koopinator has PRODded some of the hoax articles - I think the rest should also be put through PROD or AfD (possibly AfD to prevent WP:REFUNDing, and perhaps they could be bundled into one nomination as well). Finally, any PRODs that get removed for some reason should be sent to AfD.
  • I think we should also commend Koopinator for insisting this not fall by the wayside and for tracking down and destroying false information. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Crossroads: Thank you for your kind words. While i think a lot of this user's articles are unsalvageable, there are some articles from this user which i think should be partially kept. These are Battle of Rasht, House of Dadvey, Mohammad Qoli Salim Tehrani. Recapture of Isfahan, Siege of Tabriz (1908), and Atabak Park Incident. These articles were translated from good-faith articles from Persian Wikipedia, with the user in question adding fictitious material. I used Google Translate on the original articles to get an idea which claims were fabrications and which were good-faith importations, then i removed the fictitious material and copied the original sources to verify the good content. In Battle of Rasht i also added a small amount of information, since i was familiar with the subject at hand. Koopinator (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Agreed with you here. Basically my thought was that any content original to this user should be presumed false. If some of it was on a page created by him, but was original to good faith users on fa-wiki, then that could be fine. You seem to be doing the right thing with regard to what to save and what to cut.
      • Johnuniq, any further thoughts at this point on the two problem accounts? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Crossroads: By two users, do you mean Amirhosein Izadi (talk · contribs) and Amir.85 (talk · contribs)? The latter has a total of two edits, plus several entries in the edit filter log, and no activity since October 2018. The former has no activity since 27 December 2019. If they were to resume editing and declined to engage with other editors asking about the veracity of their articles I would be willing to block indefinitely until a satisfactory explanation was available. However I do not see proof of a hoax at enwiki and blocking now might not be right. I'm sorry to drag this out but can we leave it another week and see if they have resumed editing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Johnuniq: You see no proof of hoaxing? To repeat myself, consider the article Ice Flower (album) by this user. "Ice Flower has been featured in several prestigious publications, including the Los Angeles Times" - this sentence is sourced to this article, freely available online. The reference looks convincing, it is from the right publication and the title looks related to the subject matter, the only problem is the source's text does not make a single mention of an album called ice flower. It is deliberately intended to deceive the reader into thinking the reference & info is legitimate when it isn't - a textbook definition of a hoax.
            "Subtle hoaxes seriously undermine enwiki. If there is some possibility that a hoaxer will start editing again in the future, then a block prevents that harm." Koopinator (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
            • @Koopinator: Thanks for your work on this—maintaining the integrity of articles is very important. Be assured that if the editor resumes editing but fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, they will be blocked. As a clueless admin, all I can assess is what good editors have concluded and I don't see very many such editors who have concluded that a particular article is a hoax. The biggest clue is the block at fawiki but we don't know much about that. Google finds lots of pages discussing the singer Kourosh Yaghmaie and his song "Gol-e Yakh" which apparently is "Ice Flower", for example [19]. The question remains concerning whether Ice Flower (album) exists. The Los Angeles Times article is definitely about Kourosh Yaghmaie (with a different spelling of the second name). It discusses "Back From The Brink" by Kourosh. According to this the first track is "Gol E Yakh" which, as mentioned, is apparently "Ice Flower". That makes the topic very murky and I would want to see more evidence before blocking the user before they have responded. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
              • @Johnuniq: Well, maybe i chose a poor example since this was an example of a claim that is a hoax and not an article topic that is a hoax. Take Capture of Ardabil and Battle of Turkmen Sahra (of which the latter was deleted in prior AFD): In the former article you have sources with bogus page numbers, Iranica which does not contain info about Ardabil in the 1910s, and a non-existent (as far as Google search will tell me) work from 2008 called "Russia in the Constitutional Revolution". In the latter article, Battle of Turkmen Sahra, none of the sources supported the existence of the battle, and no google books searches indicated that it existed. Claims unrelated to the battle's existence were also unsourced or had sources which had nothing to do with the claim presented. And this user has had plenty of opportunity to prove he's not a hoaxer, i invited him to comment on the possibility of hoaxing back on 20 December in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Turkmen Sahra, but he continued editing unrelated articles. Koopinator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, below there was an indef issued on the basis that indef need not mean infinite, but it was partly to force the user to acknowledge the complaints and address them. [20] Couldn't there be a block of Amirhosein Izadi on that basis? It seems dangerous to leave him free to roam without addressing this. What if he pops up again months or years down the road when or where nobody is scrutinizing? As for not having edited since 27 December, that is the same day Koopinator opened the first report. It's just taken a while to get it handled. It seems pretty clear that Amirhosein Izadi is ignoring us. I say we force him to pay heed.

As for Amir.85, I did have a brain fart in saying that account edited in the last few months. [21] I was subconsciously thinking it was 2019, but it's 2020 and the edits were in the latter part of 2018. Still, seems that if one is blocked, so should the other. Fa-wiki established they are the same person and the two edits from Amir.85 are the same behavioral pattern (about music, "creating" an article from an article on fa-wiki, adding dubious material).

Bbb23, Narky Blert, Dekimasu, Michepman, any thoughts on what to do with this? -Crossroads- (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no good evidence for this idea, just a sneaking suspicion: that Amirhosein Izadi has had several or many accounts, and drops them like hot potatoes as soon as rumbled. The high quality of his User Page suggests a second or later rodeo. There can't be many English-Farsi cross-Wiki trolls, but there is at least one: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chyah.

I too would like to commend Koopinator both for spotting the problem and for persevering with it. I've only ever nailed one WP:HOAX, and proving the fact was a real pain. (It had been around for several years, but the creator had made one tiny mistake - linking to a DAB page - which brought it within the scope of my radar.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Pmoore2222 COI

Despite repeated warnings in the past at User talk:Pmoore2222, this user is again editing in a way that raises serious COI concerns. Note that his entire list of User Contributions, dating back to 1 April 2009, consists solely of edits to what appears to be his own bio. NedFausa (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• He apparently confirms he is Patrick Moore (consultant) with this edit summary and with this edit to his talk page asking to be unblocked back in 2011. Note that back in 2011 when he was unblocked, it was on condition of editing in userspace only. See User_talk:Pmoore2222#COI. He is now in violation of that agreement, albeit it was nearly 9 years ago. @Materialscientist: pinging Materialscientist to the conversation as he was the blocking/unblocking administrator at the time. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• It's been a couple of days, and no further activity from him has happened. I've posted a long note to him regarding this issue, as it appears unlikely he will see this thread before it is archived. I've watchlisted the article, and watchlisted his talk page. Hopefully he can work with us, not against us. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The user has only ever used their talk page once. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Interaction problem

GlottalStop777 (talk · contribs) has been posting to my talk page (User talk:Donald Albury#Nahuatl) in a somewhat disrespectful manner, and I do not understand what they are complaining about. There may be a competency issue involved. Can someone help me sort this out? I will notify the editor of this discussion. - Donald Albury 16:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@GlottalStop777: Please provide an explanation for your edits on User talk:Donald Albury. Have you ever edited with a different nick?-- Deepfriedokra 16:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(GlottalStop777; Donald Albury reversed the correction I made, and said he didn't do it. He needs to be kicked from the admin job tbh.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by GlottalStop777 (talk • contribs)

@GlottalStop777: Please sign your posts so we know who we are talking to. Also, see my comment below. Did you previously use the PhoenixSummon account? --Jayron32 16:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think he may be the same user as PhoenixSummon, who you reverted here on Talk:Nahuatl. The PhoenixSummon account stopped editing shortly before the GlottalStop777 account started. --Jayron32 16:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Given some of the editing idiosyncrasies and rude behavior that is common to both accounts, this seems like a WP:DUCK situation. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That edit looked like a newbie test, except the editor had a bit of history. I see that just previous to that he made an edit to Nahuatl that I looked hard at, but decided to let pass because I am not an expert on IPA, nor on the pronunciation of Nahuatl. Thanks everyone for checking this out. - Donald Albury 17:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald also reverted a "whom" to "who" error in May. I'm about to block for disruption.-- Deepfriedokra 16:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

GlottalStop777 (talk · contribs) , whatever your problem is, do please read WP:CIVIL.-- Deepfriedokra 16:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nahuatl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-- Deepfriedokra 16:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted this attempt at forum shopping. Clearly this editor has an axe to grind with Donald for whatever reason, despite there being no evidence of interaction prior to today. A block seems appropriate here. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I blocked GS following This edit to my talkFeel free to unblock if you feel I acted inappropriately.-- Deepfriedokra 17:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we need a check user to make this all neat and tidy, or is this tidy enough?-- Deepfriedokra 17:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Good block, for the record. He was quickly becoming a time-sink and I don't see any reason to entertain him anymore. I think there's ample evidence this is not GlottalStop777's first account; we may need to sort this out. --Jayron32 17:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not GlottalStop777 is a sockpuppet or not doesn't really come into it when it comes to this block, because the editor is clearly a troll. If wider sockpuppetry is suspected then a checkuser might be needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like trolling. Are we sure this isn't an LTA? Guy (help!) 18:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Given this edit, it's fairly obvious that they're the same person. Per this edit in which the PhoenixSummon account claims to be hacked, I'm indefinitely blocking both. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk's signature

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

---

InedibleHulk seems to be a competent editor and it feels like overkill to bring this here, but despite repeated pleas by several users to fix their signature, they have refused. Hulk's signature is in violation of WP:SIGAPP, specifically the bold first line which reads: Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors (emphasis mine). Hulk's signature formats the timestamp in a manner that bots do not recognize, and therefore prevents or otherwise interferes with the activities of archive bots. It is also incompatible with user scripts like Unclutter. The weird part of this is that Hulk seems to understand and acknowledge that their signature is a violation of unambiguous policy, but does not seem to care.

I want to be clear that I am here as a last resort, and harbor no resentment toward Hulk. I'm honestly just baffled that this is the hill that they have decided to die on. WMSR (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: Have you got any specific examples of how—for instance—their signature may prevent a bot from archiving a thread no matter how many times the bot passes by? ——SN54129 21:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Signature example:

InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

— xaosflux ^Talk 21:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't take a lot of weight in the "bots don't like it" part - sure they don't but that's not really a big deal. Causing "what links here" linkbacks from articles on every single signing though is a bit much. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps. Bots and their lack of feelings are of no interest to anyone. But when humans—whether editor or reader are potentially inconvenienced, then yes, I think there's an issue. For example, as RedRose64 pointed out over six months ago, a thread was not archived for ten days because of the (lack of) timestamp. If accidental, it wouldn't be a problem; but since mens rea has been established, it certainly comes within the realm of WP:DE. More to the point, the length of time over which the issue has been raised multiplied by the number of times it has been (?) laughed off indicates that some—I don't attempt to understand what—kind of point is being made.

In any case, the bottom line is that, after so many fruitless attempts at resolution met with (at best) levity, this complaint was unfortunately overdue here. ——SN54129 21:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(@Closing admin: This comment can be read as a Require standard date/time (aka prohibit) opinion per the discussion below. ——SN54129 14:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC))

Enough people have complained about this to mean that this editor should either change the signature immediately to something that resolves the complaints or revert to the standard signature. This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site where such personal preferences that get in the way of other people's work is indulged. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's put "enough people" to the test. How many editors are annoyed or inconvenienced by the signature? Petition subsections below. – Levivich 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, let's not. This is a very simple matter of someone who has a signature that causes some people annoyance, and refuses to change it the light of that. Creating battelefield-style voting sections just makes this, well, a battlefield. Why on Earth do we allow silly childish custom signatures anyway? As I said, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Phil, I hate your signature. I hate everyone's signature that is not customized. Why? Because it's difficult to tell the difference (at least for me) between a "plain" signature and some other kind of wikilink. Signatures that are colorful and pop are better than plain signatures because they (1) allow you to quickly identify one comment from another, (2) allow you to quickly identify who is speaking, (3) don't get confused for a regular link, and (4) are pretty and interesting and sometimes funny. "Not a social networking site" has nothing to do with it. (And that tired, tired slogan needs to be retired permanently. We are, in fact, a social networking site, a collaborative encyclopedia project where socializing and networking are required and happen every day among thousands of people.) As with all things, opinions on signatures vary. Of course, that doesn't mean that you should have to change your signature just because I personally don't like it. To me, it really does matter whether it's 3 editors who are annoyed, or 30, or 300. Because you'll find 30 editors annoyed about anything. Hell, 300 are annoyed by me, and I'm still here! :-D PS: It's not a battlefield, it's a straw poll. Instead of arguing over whether "a lot" of editors are bothered, or just "a few" or "some", let's just have a show of hands and see how many think this is a problem that needs to be addressed. – Levivich 22:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Augh, I have to agree with Levivich here at some level (not re: Phil B.'s signature, because he has a reason that makes sense to him and that's a contraindication to "hate" in JDL-world). I had this argument with my business partner because even IRL I use green Century Schoolbook in my email and signature thereof, unlike anyone else in my small business. Why? Because that way I can spot my own content in a thread. Freaking SCOTUS uses Century Schoolbook and that's enough of a respectability endorsement for me. And my favorite color is green. I'm 48 and hate cyber-gewgaws as much as anybody but I convinced the highly non-convince-able Business Partner that I had a rationale and it improved my efficiency. I'm just sayin'. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree about the backlinks being a problem, Xaos. There are already thousands upon thousands of backlinks to January 3 already, including thousands just in User: space alone (nevermind talk pages and mainspace). Same with January 2, and 2020, and 2019. How many pages does Hulk sign each day? A few... less than 10? Hulk is adding less than 0.1% to the backlinks. Even over the course of all of 2019, I bet it's less than 1%. The "backlink spam" is negligible. I wonder if there's a tool to verify this. – Levivich 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the point in having a sig's day and year link to mainspace; if it is causing issues with useful bots, then I'd agree that it violates WP:SIGAPP and should be changed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

If the worst it does is, as mentioned above, delay an archive bot from archiving for a few extra days, I don't think that's a problem. If there are other, more serious, problems caused, then it might be a problem. Just my two cents. – Levivich 22:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

yes there are several problems. As someone who is from a different time zone, his signature makes it impossible to understand the chronology of the comments. I have had chance to work with him on discussions about a couple of controversial pages and following those ungodly timestamp in a threaded discussion on a talk page is an absolute nightmare. I had also asked him to change this but it seems he has become a pro in deflecting requests to change his sign. This ANI was destined to happen. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Inedibility resounds around. "Chopped heart and lungs boiled in a wee sheep's stomach! Tastes as good as it sounds!" ——SN54129 22:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editors who think InedibleHulk's signature is annoying or inconvenient Editors who may think InedibleHulk is annoying or inconvenient for some reason (e.g., being inedible), but not because of his signature – Levivich 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, January 3, 2020 (UTC) Editors who looked, shook their heads, and went fishin' -- Deepfriedokra 22:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Actually my own signature gives mild (-ish) electric shocks. Why not? darwin bish 22:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC).

To be clear, I didn't decide to die on this hill. If it happens, it happens. But I've never once started these polite disagreements. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

So which hill did you decide on, then? Victims' names? Retirement of the intercontinental belt? – Levivich 23:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You know that valley between those things? Bury me there. Next to the hamulet. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I use a script that translates the UTC timestamps to local time and formats it for display the way I want. It doesn't work on IH's sigs though. It seems anti-social and non-collegial of them to do this unless there's a really good reason. I could write a custom handler for IH's format, but what about the next one? Wouldn't it be easier for IH to use a custom script that converted everyone else's sig to their desired format instead? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have Javascript enabled, so if that's part of the deal, it's easier for you to adjust things on your end. Don't worry about the next one, I've only seen one other guy do it Hulk-style here in seven years. I'm a dying breed. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

It's not even just random editor's custom's scripts. The Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time gadget fails with it too. That said, while now that I'm paying attention, I do find this disruptive and not because of the effect on timestamp interpreting scripts, however I have to be honest I either never noticed this before or did but didn't think much of it despite regularly seeing InedibleHulk in places. Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You mean someone else changed your signature for you? I think we may need to block your account as compromised..... Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In case you're not kidding, I mean I've consistently decided to go on living with this annoying problem. It's the nice normal people who want to see me fry for this. Can't really fault them for it, though, I tricked a poor gadget. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Actually you don't have to go on living with this annoying problem. You can still change your signature back thereby resolving the problem you did not create because you evidently did not change your signature even though your account was never compromised. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• InedibleHulk, I doubt people here want to see you fry for this. People here just want to focus on discussions to improve the article on talk pages without getting annoyed by ungodly timestamps. It was brought here to be fixed, only because you could not be bothered to fix this annoying problem. Apparently you believe this is something worth dying for. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Prohibit "otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors". Altering the format of the timestamp inconveniences and annoys other users directly, and less directly by causing scripts and bots to malfunction. It does not usefully distinguish the user in the sense Levivich would like. I would go so far as to say that any user probably should not alter, format or cause any links in the timestamp portion of the sig but I would have to see more examples. Timestamps are part of the cooperative operation of the talk pages and I would say, like indenting/threads and not interleaving comments, they are just part of "how it works" and should not be optional. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Prohibit if Levi really wants a straw poll, then I guess he shall have one. We certainly couldn't just fix an obvious problem and move on with minimum disruption. No sir, that wouldn't be the Wikipedia way. Inedible's signature is causing problems with archiving. They need to fix it. (And the extra back links are, at best, a potentially-disruptive nuisance). I don't buy Inedible's 'Golly gee, I'm not sure it's such a big deal' attitude. Stop stalling and fix your mess. And yes, you have chosen this hill to die on. Bully for you that you never started any of these polite disagreements (the same ones that keep arising because you can't be bothered to fix your signature). You want a cookie or something? Sheesh. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep your cookie, but if you're feeling generous, just don't call me "they". It's annoying. You know I'm a guy by my name. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Trust me, I could think of quite a few other things to call you. Lepricavark (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

From the way you wrote that, I get the feeling we've met. If it's any consolation, I'm probably sorry for how things went. Cheers to new beginnings? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

You expressed annoyance at my adherence to increasingly-standard pronoun usage (no, your username does not make it 100% clear that you are male) in a thread that was caused by your refusal to change an annoying and decidedly non-standard signature. Hence my snarky reply. No, I'm not aware of any prior history nor do I bear you any personal ill will. I just think it's very silly of you to refuse to change your signature after the problems with it have been explained clearly and repeatedly. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

And I think it's silly of people to keep bothering me about changing it. That's the real time-killer. From day one, I was clearly not interested, and repeatedly suggested quickly looking elsewhere if they see something vaguely disturbing but harmless in the future. But yeah, personally, I don't dislike you. Good luck with forgetting about this, seriously! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

It's not harmless. That's the whole point. But it sounds like you either can or won't understand that your signature is a problem. Or do you understand and just can't be bothered to fix it. But you can be bothered to try to spin this to make it seem like everyone else is the problem, not you. Lepricavark (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking your name could be seen as a reference to She-Hulk as well. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI to anyone, if you have navigation popups gadget enabled, mousing over a sig will show the user's gender if they set one in their own preferences (there's a note in prefs telling you it will be public). It's very helpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: How about a compromise? You can accomplish the MDY re-formatting of everyone's timestamps (not just your own) without scripting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Do you really need the date linked? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you mean I should check the appropriate box under Date Format, I tried. It's still checked, 77 months later. Does nothing. Is my gender flag working? Yes, I really need the date linked. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

That setting changes the way dates are displayed in history pages, not in others' signatures. WMSR (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Works great, in that case. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Re: prefs, my mistake. I agree the amount of time spent on signature issues is unreasonable. The platform should handle this stuff in a user-proof way. Not that I agree with this user's disruption to make the point. Require standard timestamp. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time gadget let's you set whatever date format you want. Of course it will also adjust the time to match your local time. And currently I don't think there is any way to stop this other than by changing your browser so it reports your timezone as UTC, but you could try asking the gadget designer on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Comments in Local Time. Turning off the local time thing goes against the purpose of the gadget, but there could be reason why an editor would want to manually set a time zone rather than follow their browser. It does some other things by default, like add the number of days and uses a non 24 hour clock, but these can be turned off. I've been using it for a very long time and it seems to nearly always work in default mode so I assume will also work for adjust the date format. Of course, it will fail with InedibleHulk's time stamp as I outlined above. Also it would require you to enable JavaScript Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk has now updated his gender in Preferences, putting an end to this off-topic discussion

Maybe more to the point, I'm unconvinced someone being a fan of Incredible Hulk and name themselves after them means they must be male, especially since there's nothing male about either component of the name. I mean if a woman was a fan of Superman or Spiderman, maybe they're unlikely to call themselves Spiderman or Superman (although even that I'm unconvinced). But if someone is a fan of The Flash? I generally avoid assuming someone is male or female, even if there is some component of their pseudonym which may suggest someone is male or female just because you never know if there is some other reason for their choice. Yes, this includes stuff like Alan, John, girl. In fact in this very thread, there is someone with Juliet in their name which since I am slightly familiar with the NATO phonetic alphabet, I'm guessing may not necessarily indicate they are female. If someone asks me to refer to them by a specific pronoun I will try to remember that so I can respect it, but otherwise, I feel it's fine to just not worry about it and use a gender neutral pronoun since with most discussions it doesn't particularly matter what gender the person is and it's probably better to not know to avoid it influencing you. (Although it is hard to put aside your implicit biases even if you're able to word your reply without assumptions.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC) You've graced us with 238 words on the merits of You know I'm a guy by my name. Are we really going to debate that here? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Nil Einne, "He" has now updated his gender in Preferences, after someone asked on his page. This side discussion on gender should be stopped to focus on the issue at hand. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC) I'm not going to uncollapse the discussion, but I strongly disagree. InedibleHulk, not me, is the one who claimed people should be aware of their gender from their name. I strongly disagree, and find it disgusting that I am not entitled to challenge an editor on the incredibly offensive suggestion that I am required to make assumptions on someone's gender by their name. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Nil Einne please accept my apologies, if the collapsing offended you. Whoever started it, this is still a side discussion "already resolved". So I request you to channel your efforts on the main topic. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC) (EC) I admit when I made my reply, I missed that Lepricavark had already challenged InedibleHulk on their claim that InedibleHulk implies they must be male point blank (i.e. without the she-hulk part). Now I see Lepricavark did, I'm less concerned. Still I stand by the merits of my comment in making it clear to InedibleHulk why their statement was unwarranted, in fact offensive. And making it here, on ANI, where that statement was made. Again, it's perfectly fine for editors to tell an editor what their gender is, or to ask to be referred by a specific pronoun, but that doesn't mean editors should be required to make assumptions. Likewise, with the gadget, while there's nothing wrong with it, and some editors may wish to use it, there's also nothing wrong with editors not wishing to know by default and so not using it. Note that if editors felt the whole gender pronoun thing was off-topic and had collapsed the whole thing, I don't see why note. By I stand by my view there is no reason why my comment pointing out the harm of expecting editors to make assumptions about gender had to be collapsed in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Require standard date/time (aka prohibit). I agree individuality is good. However, correctly formatted timestamps are currently the only way the end of a comment can be determined by a bot. One day bots will be smarter but meanwhile the archiving and reply-to issues mean a standard timestamp is highly desirable. Given that the only reason to not have a standard timestamp is to express displeasure against the mindless mob, the signature should be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is about writing my dates like a regular North American mob member, nice and forward-like. And subtly exposing the past, one day at a time. Mindless masses are cool, in my books. Remember Automatic for the People? Word is buddy's sixty today, pass it on. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure all these people understand. It's not like years ago. – Levivich 07:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have got this rebellion thing topsy-turvy. Such a trivial matter as making your signature conform to expectations is simply stubbornness, not rebellion, and making quotes about some bore-rock band that filled stadiums and tens of millions of other people follow is about as far from rebellion as you can get. And oh to be sixty again. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: This is a thing of truth. They were completely tedious post 1987. Or possibly even '86, I can't remember now. ——SN54129 19:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly. Not rebelling here. Simple personal stubbornness, per usual. The "important" thing was just telling you he's sixty now. Boring, predictable round number. Mediocre band, but people remember it. Nothing complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

• Require standard timestamp, as nominator. WMSR (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp, (aka prohibit other type of timestamps). These standard timestamps are there for a very good reason and are there not just for bots. Timestamps help to understand the chronology in a threaded discussion. As I mentioned in my comment above his signature makes it harder for anyone, who is not in the same timezone as his, to decipher when he made that comment. This is a major inconvenience and an impediment to discussion on talk pages. His reasons for keeping it hardly holds weight. FWIW, Cookies for changing it have already been given. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp. I'm not hugely fussed about the archive bots, but if the non-standard timestamp prevents proper reformatting for those users who want timestamps displayed in their local time rather than UTC, then that's a significant inconvenience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp. The current timestamp adversely affects or completely defeats a number of widely-used tools, and the counter-argument is entirely uncompelling. I, Hulk, and others have previously commented at length at Hulk's UTP, if anyone is interested in reading further. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp, regretfully. I wish there was a better way to do it, but there is too much value in having a standardized timestamp for all the reasons listed above, and too little reason why anyone would need to replace it. That said, rather than focusing on one editor, we might want to consider a larger RFC to update WP:SIGAPP and make it unambiguous that signatures must contain a standardized timestamp. The purpose of talk pages is communication, which is best-served by ensuring timestamps are easily accessible to tools, bots, and so on. There's plenty of other ways people can customize their signature without impairing that functionality. --Aquillion (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I would oppose an update to SIGAPP per WP:CREEP. We know of only one active user using a non-standard timestamp, and there is ample evidence that he would have dismissed any such requirement as "silly". For any other user, I believe that the arguments against, the ongoing parade of complaints, and the fact that they are alone in using a nonstandard timestamp will continue to be sufficient. Wait until there is a demonstrated need. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• In my assessment, this is straightforward WP:POINT disruption. The actual issues are petty ones, sure. Relatively minor in the grand scheme of the universe, sure. But they are real. The simple situation of having minor issues and complaints repeatedly brought to your attention and refusing to resolve them, for no real reason whatsoever, is the equivalent of trolling. Per WP:CIR and WP:COMMUNICATE, responding amicably to simple and straightforward issues without causing drama is an utterly base expectation the community holds. Refusing to do so is disruptive editing. The fact that it’s ‘not a big deal’ is not a caveat to any of this. There are no vested contributors. Petty pot stirring and boundary pushing is not a big deal, but that doesn’t mean we should or will tolerate it. Per these community norms, and per the above, I intend to block the user if they continue to refuse to resolve this minor issue, until which point they resolve it. The fact that they essentially say “I’m not choosing to die on this hill but I will” indicates to me that they prioritize petty disruption over the smooth running of the project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp - There should no real reason to ever wikilink timestamps, Also via Preferences all dates for me are set to DMY so currently IncredibleHulks talkpage is a mishmash of both which bugs the hell out of me. –Davey2010^Talk 10:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp let's just end this shit. This thread has seriously gone off the rails when editors are prevented from challenging others on their incredibly offensive suggestions. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Collapsing off-topic discussion is not sending a thread off the rails, rather quite the opposite. This discussion is not about that, "incredibly offensive" or otherwise. But given Swarm's stated intent to block until the sig is changed to use the standard timestamp, this thread seems eminently closable to me, and that would "end this shit". ―Mandruss ☎ 11:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  If the discussion was off-topic, then the whole fucking thing was off-topic. Not part of it. And so is this fucking aside. The fact remains, my comment was incredibly on-topic, to the claim made here, in this thread by another editor that I found unwarranted, or even offensive. It was largely apart from the main discussion, and before it was collapsed, there was zero reason why it would ever come into this discussion. If InedibleHulk wanted to challenge me, that is their right, and I see no harm in them doing so. I probably would not reply, since I generally do my best to say all I need to say and leave it be, hence the long comments. Sometimes unexpected things do come up, like happened here. In this case, that was because my right to reply to a comment I found unwarranted was challenged so I did reply further but this didn't come from InedibleHulk. But mostly I find it best to leave a lengthy reply and avoid getting draw into long back and forths. Suffice it to say, I remain unconvinced there was a reason to selective collapse my reply. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Require standard timestamp ~ it's absolutely ridiculous that someone who wants to be part of the community (participating in this great project) is unwilling to abide by the simplest and most innocuous of the community's requests, but rather seems to go out of his way to purposely antagonise it. Not at all collegial. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp – this is incredibly POINTy behaviour. InedibleHulk has been repeatedly told his signature is causing problems and has refused to change it, for no good reason. P-K3 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Prohibit (require standard timestamp) and support for Swarm's proposal. Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp per Swarm. The long-term refusal to follow requirements is disruptive and a time-sink for those who encounter it. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp This is perhaps the most pointless WP:POINT disruption I've seen. It's a waste of everyone's time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp It breaks archiving. End of. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Let it be The main source of disruption is clearly the complaining, not the lack of stamp. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Please review my above comments, it explains why your refusal to fix something you feel is a non-issue is in itself disruptive, lays out the underlying community rules and norms, and rationalizes a discretionary block purely based on that alone. Note also that we operate by consensus, and, while you have the right to your opinion and it has been noted for the record, there's a clear consensus that your signature is disruptive on its own merits and is to be changed. You can disagree all you want, but you cannot reject it. Refusal to accept a consensus is yet another layer of WP:POINT disruption. Additionally, we can and will issue blocks to enforce consensus when needed. No one wants to see you blocked, but truthfully you and only you are going to force our hand here. This is, again, a really bizarre thing to be forcing a block over this, but at this point, it is quite simply the next step. If not because you agree, if not for fear of a block, please at least respect the consensus here and fix your sig. Take all the time you need to mull it over, but continuing to post your unchanged sig, or continuing to edit without confirming that you have resolved the issue will be interpreted as a refusal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to block me for using the signature I've used since 2013, that would be the biggest disruption ever associated with it. I won't let you. I'll stop using it (after responding to questions at this needless clusterfuck, I mean). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Support indef block, per this suggestion, until they fix it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What, block me for not using it? Then unblock me once it's fixed, but still unused? How would you even know I'd fixed it? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

• Require standard timestamp to enforce a minimum requirement of accessibility. I'd just disable "fancy" signatures wiki-wide, but that probably goes too far for most users' liking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Advise standard timestamp Consensus is rare - and we seem to have something close to a consensus. That should be an eye opener for the Hulk. I am generally a freedom junky, but I can sort of agree with Swarm in saying we have some minimum standards. I am just not sure we need to threaten the editor with draconian blocks over a signature. Perhaps an RfC? ANI is rarely the place for issues that are not straight up disruption to the encyclopedia. Wm335td (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Require standard timestamp - if it prevents archiving then there is no discussion to be had, surely? The fact this editor has refused to change it is very concerning, as is their general attitude in this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

General signature timestamp guideline change

The discussion above is currently trending towards a general discussion about signature timestamps - to not fork this discussion, perhaps we can continue below on a guideline change to Wikipedia:Signatures? It currently reads: All signature timestamps must end with the trailing "(UTC)". This is mandatory and required by archiving bots for them to function correctly. Signatures that interfere with the archiving bots are considered disruptive and editors may be blocked for it. but perhaps should be strengthened to:

Signatures should not include customization to the format of timestamps. All timestamps should adhere to the normally system generated format, ending with the trailing "(UTC)". This is necessary for clear communications, and for archiving bots to function correctly. Signatures that interfere with the archiving bots may be considered disruptive and editors may be blocked for it.

Thoughts? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Better to fix the bots to accommodate the humans than the other way around. I hope everyone realizes from a technical point of view how utterly ridiculous this is. Bots should recognize signatures by the use of some kind of signature flag that the four tildes should insert, rather than by looking for a particular string. Bots should be smart enough to read mdy or dmy with or without wikilinks. It’s embarrassing that something as simple as linking the time stamp should break a bunch of bots and scripts. Think about it folks: WMF brings in $100 million a year but our software breaks if someone wikilinks the time stamp. In the year 2020, we have cars that drive themselves and robots on Mars, but Wikipedia, 5th largest website, can’t handle this. – Levivich 15:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Accommodate which humans besides InedibleHulk? Who else is doing this? Who else knows how to do this? Of them, who wants to do this? To get the standard timestamp, one has to do nothing at all, and nothing at all is never an unreasonable burden. You might as well argue that users should be able to define the character to use in place of the tilde when they sign, so that the software accommodates the humans instead of the other way around. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Er, the WMF has nothing to do with self-driving cars and robots on Mars. Why would the technological capacities of other organizations be relevant to our own? Besides, those things have far more practical utility than these wikilinked timestamps. What's the point of investing resources to enable us to do something that doesn't need to be done? Lepricavark (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

the WMF has nothing to do with self-driving cars and robots on Mars – And a good thing too, truth be told. EEng 21:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, hahaha investing resources to enable us to do something that doesn't need to be done is exactly what is happening here right now. With $100 million a year, you’d think we could get some normal software, but nooo lets tear each other apart instead. Good plan. – Levivich 20:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It was your idea to have a straw poll. Well, you got one. Lepricavark (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I meant the guideline change, the subject of this subsection. – Levivich 20:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have no objection to this, but it's likely neither necessary, as we aren't seeing multiple issues, nor productive, as it seems IH has dug in his heels on this for some reason. InedibleHulk, please just rise above whatever first made you think, "You can't make me" the first time someone brought this up and to dig those heels in deeper and deeper each time someone complained, until now this feels to you like an issue of principle in which you simply must triumph in the name of all independent thinkers everywhere. It's not an issue of principle. It's just plain not important. It's a small decision you made years ago that isn't in any way symbolic of your individual rights. You don't 'lose' if you decide to change. --valereee (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with fighting for free speech, independent thinkers or liberal society. Not even a contest. I'm just calmly refusing to change what I like, like I have for years with very slight impact. It's those fighting for change since it became hot yesterday who believe in winning, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Refusing to change something that no one has complained about is fine. Continuing to refuse to change it after someone has complained is assholery. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing for the sake of a gadget, script or tool is pussification, if you want to see this shift in Team America: World Police terms. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

• Support the proposed changes. Levivich, Please read my comments above, sometimes, as in this case, it is the human that needs "fixing". Nothing wrong with the bots or WMF software. User:Xaosflux is trying to make sure that in future, any more such issues can be swiftly dealt with, without wasting a lot of community time, as we are doing in this thread and IH's talk page for this issue. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Rather than spending our time making a new rule for humans to follow, a better use of time would be changing the rules that bots follow (their code). – Levivich 15:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Lets agree that we differ in our opinions. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  WP:SIG is also a "guideline", this is mostly looking to update it to reflect the current expectations, if that is what they are. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mild Support Any smart-arse who really wanted to get around that original wording could easily do so, and be totally smug about it, and waste lots of people's time trying to deal with the problem they'd caused. But would anyone really be so small-minded and POINTy to actually do that, or not change it when asked? It's a shame we think we might need to modify otherwise quite clear wording just because they might try! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. We know of only one active user using a non-standard timestamp, and there is ample evidence that he would have dismissed any such requirement as "silly". Wait until there is a demonstrated need. Anyway, it takes quite a bit of imagination and technical insight to even figure out how to change one's timestamp. As I understand it, you have to (1) code a nonstandard timestamp in your signature definition, using the appropriate "magic words", and (2) always sign with three tildes to prevent the system from adding the standard timestamp. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The code is printed out in plain gobbledygook in my archives, if anyone wants to dig it up and wield my power. Three tildes is so much easier, you'll love it. But don't make the same mistake I did (going first). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Mandruss and valereee. We shouldn't change our policy because one person wants to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. This whole thing is just absurd and the solution is to sign with 4 tildes if you're going to sign at all. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, Wugapodes, Thanks for the thoughts. What makes you feel so optimistic that we may not have more such folks in future. In fact this is a case that was brought to notice, there may be folks already tweaking their timestamps when they clearly shouldn't. Instead of repeating this entire time wasting process once again from the scratch, I would prefer, we put this clearly in black and white, so that folks planning to test the tolerance limits for the community can be discouraged. Finally WP:SIG is a "guideline". DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, wait until there is a demonstrated need. Act based on what we know, not on what might be. In any case, even the policy part of SIG, SIGAPP, has never been strictly enforced anyway (if it had been, the issue of Hulk's timestamp wouldn't have persisted for years). If you examine the arguments in this discussion that oppose Hulk's timestamp, they generally don't refer to the policy itself but rather to the breakage of tools and the ongoing editor complaints. So the policy itself is fairly beside the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What makes you feel so optimistic that we may not have more such folks in future WP:AGF mostly. Between the existing guidance and WP:POINT, our guidance sufficiently describe how to not be disruptive with your signature. Even if someone doesn't understand and has a disruptive signature, if they really are editing in good faith and here to build an encyclopedia, when asked, they should stop. The only reason we are having this discussion is because asking the editor on their talk page didn't work. Changing our policies essays of various levels of consensus to address someone intentionally trying to game the system isn't going to help anything; people who want to test the tolerance limits of the community will do so no matter what, and honestly of all the ways someone can do that with their signature, modifying the timestamp is one of the harder ones. (edit conflict) Ŵ̴̬̆̌̕̚û̶̘͌̀͊g̴̡͚̦̒̋ͅà̵̤̰̂̚ͅp̷̳̺͓̻̀ò̸̧͉͋̓ͅd̶̬̥̥͑̄̉ͅȩ̷̲̺̰̓ś̷̥̋͝ 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support The idea that the bots must conform to the user isn't an argument that holds much water when there's no practical reason for a user to change their date stamp at all. Ideally, that would be technically beyond their purview. But in the meantime, might as well spell it out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The practical reason for linking the date is letting people click it and learn new things. Yours only sits there, backward. No offense, just does. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

• Support - there are reasons to do this well covered above, and I'm not seeing any downsides. Annoying signatures of active users are often very difficult/time-consuming to address if the user digs their heels in, as can be seen in this thread (and the related threads). If there's really no downside to this, it seems worth codifying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support it shouldn't be necessary to spell this out, but apparently it is. There's no compelling reason to be able to wikilink the timestamp and no need to change the bots. Lepricavark (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support provided InedibleHulk is grandfathered in Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. There is clear support in the given case; this should be part of WP:SIG for the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Question, Comment, or Concern. I can think of at least two examples outside of this recent controversy where users used a custom timestamp. phab:T231993 filed by Leduyquang03 from a few months ago rings a lot of bells in my mind. The second example is Lourdes who I know does it from time-to-time (link). I'm pinging these users in case they want to weigh in here about this potential rule (which I do kinda support tbh). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral, as such a requirement seems to already fall under the previously cited guideline. WMSR (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The existing guideline already covers the present situation; more elaborate tailoring to the present situation is not necessary to handle the present situation nor any other conceivable future scenario. The rewrite is unnecessarily complicated, and simultaneously strengthens and weakens phrasing for no good reason. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: There is actually another part of the guideline that discourages customised timestamps (under #Purpose of signatures):

... signatures also serve a technical purpose: various user scripts and talk-page archiving bots, including lowercase sigmabot III, rely on their time stamps to know when to archive old threads. It's because of this that it's also important to avoid overly customizing the date output of a signature, as doing so can lead to stale threads persisting long after they'd otherwise be archived.

However, if a mention in the WP:SIGPROB section is still desired, I suggest a more concise rewrite:

Customizing a signature's timestamp is prohibited, as it will interfere with automated discussion archiving.

This can be combined with the following line (about failure to sign) to read:

Other disruptive practices include customizing a signature's timestamp (as it will interfere with automated discussion archiving) and failing to sign after being reminded.

This should resolve concerns regarding undue complexity and WP:CREEP (as the rewritten guideline would actually be shorter). No comment on the necessity of these changes. – Teratix ₵ 23:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Weeb Dingle pretending to be new with a different account

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

---

Weeb Dingle (talk · contribs) is an editor whose editing I and others have had issues with; for example, see this and this ANI thread on him, and this post by me on his talk page. I noticed his Nkofa (talk · contribs) account at Talk:Polyamory. By looking at Nkofa's very early contributions, I knew that the editor wasn't new (for example, immediately creating a user page, which is a rare thing for newbies to do and is very characteristic of socks because they want to immediately blend in by having a blue user page). As seen here, I went to Nkofa's talk page and asked him about his previous account(s). He ignored my query and continued editing. I looked at his latest editing and recognized him as Weeb Dingle when I saw him at Talk:Guitar synthesizer. A topic like that is one of Weeb Dingle's interests. I felt that it was too much of a coincidence to see both accounts at Polyamory and interested in a topic like that. I then examined Nkofa's edit summaries -- such as "nonsequitur," "reduced superlatives; updated tenses" and "tone generally neutralised" -- and saw that they are edit summaries that Weeb Dingle uses. After seeing all of that, I had no doubt about Nkofa being Weeb Dingle. As also seen on Nkofa's talk page, I gave him a chance to come clean as Weeb Dingle. He did not. Berean Hunter, a CheckUser, later confirmed them as being the same person.

My issue (like I stated on the Nkofa talk page) with this is the following: Weeb Dingle presents himself as new on the Nkofa user page, stating, "I am not certain what I am doing yet so I hope that people can be patient with me. [...] This is my first day here and I have not yet found a one-click way to insert a date so let me just say it is 22 December 2019." Contrary to what WP:Clean start states, he continued editing in the same areas. It is deceptive because he is not new and others will believe that he is a new editor (as evidenced by the Welcome template on his talk page) editing these same areas when he is Weeb Dingle. Am I to just pretend that I don't know who he is? I didn't want to, especially given my issues with his editing. I think he changed to Nkofa to avoid scrutiny. And WP:SCRUTINY is clear. If an editor wants to change their name, they can change their name. But he pretended to be new. So what should be done in this case? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor seemed to imply they were taking this to ANI [22], but then didn't. I've told them that at a minimum, they need to ensure the connection between the accounts is clearly declared. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for procedural error. I did not see this before posting below. Nkofa (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reformatting the seperately created section below as a subsection of this section, as they concern the same issue. --JBL (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn

First, the confession. Until a couple of months ago, I was editing as Weeb Dingle. Sometime around Thanksgiving Day, my laptop crashed. I was able to recover almost everything and to reconnect with all of my online accounts — except for my W'pedia logon, where I'd been relying on the "stay logged in" cookie for months. And fool that I am, the password is one of those "oh this is so clever I'll never forget it" brainfarts. I was not able to find any official way to request assistance with this, I spent hours digging through endless Help pages, and concluded that in that respect I am hosed. Unless there is a way back known by others, or I trip over some handwritten note, the Weeb Dingle account is functionally dead, though I would happily take it up again given the opportunity. I took that as a maybe the Universe is telling you something event and chose to start anew as Nkofa, editing articles and staying out of trouble, in particular avoiding encounters with one particular user. My intent was/is not at all malign, in no way abusing the position of "running multiple accounts." When someone opts to file an official grievance about this, I will move forward gladly.

But I was tracked down by the sockhunter User:Flyer22 Reborn. That opens up a bunch of issues, which will take explanation. What follows relies almost entirely on my imperfect memory; I did not at any point keep a diary of my grievances.

Though I readily stand up for what I believe to be right, I have never in life been comfortable appealing to some authority for support, in large part because I find mobbing (bullying by a group) distasteful at best, even when I am entirely certain of my stance. (In like manner, I have shied away from bringing differences over the editing of articles before a group, as I likely ought have done.) Despite many months of probable cause, I disliked even posting here, but I am now comfortable with it.

Until a decade ago, I was a professional editor. Soon after signing up as a Wikipedia editor, I worked on some article (possibly Romance (love)) for a half-hour, an oddly awkward passage that also struck me as editor-imposed conjecture unsupported by any nearby citation. I fixed the language and marked it up with a couple of templates (which admittedly I was still learning to apply). It was my biggest WP accomplishment to that point, and I did feel a bit proud. Within hours, it was entirely reverted. Knowing that changes of any significance need (supposedly) to be discussed, I checked the Talk page, and found absolutely nothing. This bothered me, because any editor worth the label would (so I assumed) have fixed my missteps and left a helpfully instructive note there or on my own Talk page. There was, though, a comment in the revision history, which basically wagged a finger in my face for doing it wrong. That was how I first encountered User:Flyer22 Reborn.

My degree work was primarily in human relationships and sexuality; I am both published and well-versed in those topical areas, and this has informed my choices for Wikipedia articles needing oversight. As a result, there were repeated run-ins with User:Flyer22 Reborn, no more productive. I began using article Talk pages to explain my changes, and found myself going into ever-greater detail, soon regularly accompanied with quoted examples and bullet-point lists, sometimes using hundreds of words to explain why ten weren't correct. I got much more terse than normal, and have said unkind things about the poor quality of more than a few articles. Soon enough, I was being regularly threatened with various charges and potential sanctions, some tiffs becoming quite ludicrous, as when User:Flyer22 Reborn used a Talk page to harangue me for "abusing" Talk pages.

Yes, I met snarkiness with snarkiness, and I am chagrined to have found myself in such miserable company. That's part of the reason I shifted to Nkofa without pursuing Weeb Dingle more vigorously.

As explained in User:Flyer22 Reborn's "My views on disruptive editors, including WP:Socks, and disgruntled editors," I defer to the standard thus set:

Regardless of an editor's intention when following another, WP:HOUND, states, "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. [...] The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason." Notice the "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing" part? It matters not what your intention is if "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing" is the result of your tabs on that editor/following that editor.

I certainly don't now care about the intentions of User:Flyer22 Reborn, I was highly suspicious that I was being followed spitefully, I am definitely tired of being hounded, and my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia is a fraction of the first months — therefore, the criteria are met.

I seek not anyone's punishment, just some separation: All I want is to be left alone to edit. Issue a restraining order or equivalent. If I make some change in error, then I am glad to learn the basis of the mistake, and not be harangued for crass ineptitude. Though repeat encounters with User:Flyer22 Reborn have eroded my civility, I strive to be more open and interactive with editors, even when I feel them to be entirely wrong-headed. However, I do not view Wikipedia as my social network or online community — nothing wrong with anyone else doing so — rather a place to perform tasks necessary to help point users to credible, timely, reliable information.

I am known as a strong-willed person (IRL, at least); if I am feeling this beaten-down, then there are certainly a dozen who, for the sin of mere self-confidence, have been cowed to silence by User:Flyer22 Reborn, and as many who have given up entirely on Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe that User:Flyer22 Reborn is unique, or even particularly interesting. If this is an environment where the bigger bully is always going to come out on top, I am not interested in being either bully or victim.
Nkofa (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:Nkofa. You say "What follows relies almost entirely on my imperfect memory; I did not at any point keep a diary of my grievances." The "history" system here means you don't need to keep a diary. But when you bring grievances here, you do need to go back in history to make it possible for other users of the noticeboard to see what, specifically, happened; you need to provide diffs. There isn't a single diff in your long text above, nor more than one clickable article name (qualified with a "possibly"). Please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. If you make the readers here do all the work, you may not get much response. Also, are you aware of the list of your own contributions, top right on every page..? That should be helpful in finding the best diffs. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC).

• Nkofa, why did you lie on your user page and say, This is my first day here? And why did you say, I am not certain what I am doing yet, when you are an experienced editor with over 4,400 edits? [23]
• I think this report about Flyer22 Reborn is retaliatory. It is, of course, totally unsupported and subjective. Weeb Dingle's habit is to leave rants on talk pages, with no reference to sources and hardly any to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, expounding their personal opinions about how an article should be written. At sexuality topics, Flyer22 Reborn is usually one of the first to respond (to whoever starts a discussion). In these cases other editors often show up as well, and - very importantly - they likewise show no support for Weeb Dingle's ideas. I am sure that in every case, it would turn out that Flyer22 Reborn had edited the article and/or commented on its talk page long before Weeb Dingle ever showed up, hence she was already watching it. So, that's not following or hounding.
• Here are the cases I have dealt with Weeb Dingle; in these you can see clearly the pattern I outlined above: [24][25][26][27]
• The problem is Weeb Dingle, and this is further confirmed by the previous times this user has been taken to ANI by Flyer22 Reborn and Pepperbeast. [28][29] In the first, Tomwsulcer commented and Doc James closed it; in the second, Black Kite closed it. Doug Weller was also there. Weeb Dingle has also received warnings on their talk page [30][31][32][33] from Toddst1, Doc James, Black Kite, and Flyer22 Reborn.
• Now this user is asking to edit however they want without interference? I don't think so. It makes no sense that they should show up at articles Flyer22 Reborn is already at and ask her to refrain from commenting on this user's ideas when there is no evidence of hounding. And now they say they would happily take up the Weeb Dingle account again given the opportunity?
• I suggest the admins do the following: (1) Block indefinitely the Weeb Dingle account to prevent any further evasion of scrutiny by switching back should the password be 'remembered'. Alternatively, if there is some way to send Nkofa the Weeb Dingle password, Nkofa could be blocked instead and they could be told to stick to the original, primary account. Assuming the former, (2) Require Nkofa to state clearly on their user page they formerly edited under Weeb Dingle, and to edit the Weeb Dingle user page to state that this person is now editing under Nkofa. (3) Warn this user strongly about their attempting to evade scrutiny, about misuse of talk pages, and about their failure to treat Wikipedia as a collaborative environment. Note that I would support even stronger sanctions should others feel they are appropriate. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

yah I posted on his talk page how to request a lost Password but .... he's lying, all you have to do is look at Weeb Dingle User contributions which ends December 21 ... last I checked Thanksgiving was in November Jena (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle's unfounded claims of hounding were addressed before. Anyone can go to an article like Romance (love) and see who was there first via the edit history. They can also look at the talk page and see what happened. How Weeb Dingle acted from the start. His password explanation doesn't hold up for reasons already noted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nkofa or "Weeb Dingle", after reading all of this, it looks to me like your current user page is a big fat flagrant lie. I have got to admit, I really do not think that flagrant liars should be permitted to edit Wikipedia, because such people cannot be trusted about anything. So, please explain why the community of editors who tell the truth should allow you to continue editing alongside us? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Piling on the above, regarding "All I want is to be left alone to edit.". This is a wiki, so that won't happen. Other people is supposed to do their best to improve stuff, including your edits, here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Weeb Dingle/Nkofa as others have said, your explanation doesn't make much sense considering you were editing as recently as December 21 with the Weeb Dingle account, despite losing access "around Thanksgiving Day" and this is in November or October depending on what country you're referring to. It also doesn't explain why you claimed on your Nkofa user page that December 22 was you first day [34] or you are "now here" (which I think is clearly meant to be "new here"). Other parts of your comment strongly suggest your intention was to create a new account to avoid scrutiny of your editing here. Even editors making a legitimate Wikipedia:Clean start should generally avoid misleading about their history and especially when it comes to why they have a new account. Of course it is impossible to make a legitimate clean start if you are editing the exact same article, and started editing with your new account the day after your last one started editing. I strongly suggest you think carefully about any further comments, since anything but honesty is not likely to go down well and you're clearly on thin ice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

PAustin4thApril1980 Reported by Alcibiades979 for Racism

This deals with the page 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike. This page has been slightly contentious due to the event. That being said, user PAustin4thApril1980 suggested red flagging user and Wiki Administrator Mhhossein ^talk due to his ethnicity, Persian, saying that this makes him "sympathetic to the mullahs." I'm not Persian, I'm Colombian, but I have friends who are Persian and I find racism such as this to be absolutely disgusting.

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike&diff=934047198&oldid=934040945

Notification to user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PAustin4thApril1980&diff=934049385&oldid=932660833

Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Not racism, just saying that giving equal weight to the POV of the Iranian Government is wrong, given it is a theocratic despotism with a thin democratic veneer. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@PAustin4thApril1980: Regardless of whether it's racism, it's a personal attack. If you do it again, you risk being blocked. As an aside, Mhhossein is not an admin at en.wiki but is one at Commons.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• ...rather than a plutocratic despotism with a thin democratic veneer  ;) ——SN54129 13:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Even so, it's pretty much an aspersion; I've hatted the section, but, tbh, if you hadn't have already replied it could have been removed outright. ——SN54129 13:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@PAustin4thApril1980: As an aside, I can tell you that most Iranians from Western countries do not think highly of the Iranian regime, perhaps except the most fanatical of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little at a loss as to the fact that if I revert an edit three times I'm banned, but... if I suggest red flagging a user due to being x ethnicity, well we can just cover that up real quick, and move on, shame on whoever replied because then we could've just flat out deleted the whole thing and pretended it didn't happen. It seems to me that maybe priorities are a little misplaced. Edit warring bad, suggesting someone's thoughts and ideas are invalid on a subject due to being Iranian, or Chinese, or Latin or Arab or whatever, then trying to gain consensus to ban them from said topic seems far worse. Racism is racism. It seems to me that on an international site like Wikipedia that should be taken very seriously. But then again, I'm Colombian, so what do I know? Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, I was upset because I feel NPOV should not mean giving equal time to theocratic despots. It was out of a sense of morality and a desire for justice, not racism. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It may help if you clarify what you're referring to. If you revert an edit four times, that's a violation of WP:3RR, and you may receive a short block to stop you from doing it further. You won't be banned though, unless there is something much wider going on. As for this case, well the editor is likely to be blocked if they repeat their statement. And potentially it will be a longer block than a simple, single, first, 3RR violation. AFAICT, the article doesn't come under any WP:discretionary sanctions regime, except maybe BLP and ISIL, and none has been tagged. If it does, and is tagged, and an admin applies 1RR, then reverting 3 times may earn you a block. If you are aware of the discretionary sanctions regime, it could conceivable earn a topic ban, but again, it is very, very, unlikely based solely on you reverting an edit 3 times. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion to "red flag" someone because of their ethnicity was entirely inappropriate. If we suggest that someone with an Iranian/Persian connection cannot comment at that page, we should also ban American editors from commenting there. They (we) are just as likely to have a bias with regard to this incident - probably more so. IMO no action should be taken here, but PAustin (who BTW is unrepentant and does not seem to understand why their comment was inappropriate) should be formally warned not to make that kind of comment about another editor in the future. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This warrants a block in my opinion. To "redflag" someone as unable to edit Wikipedia based on their ethnicity is unacceptable. This user has a history of claiming non-democracy sources and people are inherently POV, despotic, and otherwise lesser ([35], [36], [37]). Seems that others think a "final warning" would be better, and I think that should be a minimum response here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the range of opinions expressed here, I've chosen to issue an unequivocal final warning to PAustin4thApril1980. I confirm that I'm willing to make an indefinite block should the behaviour recur. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you RexxS. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Indian films at Cannes

Hi. Please could someone look at this article and confirm that it's the same as the pages deleted multiple times listed here? This goes back at least five years(!) involving the re-creation of the same material by a sockfarm. I thought it had gone for good, but looks like it has returned. If it is the same material, please can it be deleted (sock avoiding a block), along with the category Category:Indian winners at Cannes? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, The list is similar between the two articles (not surprising) but there are a number of differences. The more important distinction is that the three introductory paragraphs current article are not tracking closely with the opening paragraphs of the deleted article. Somewhat surprising, but I don't see it as close enough to conclude it's the same editor. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I know it's only circumstantial, but I find it hard to believe that this new editor was able to suddenly create this (quite sophisticated) article. Made a handful of edits in Nov19, before lying dormant for about a month. Apart from this page, they also created this article, which was deleted in July 2017, after being re-created by a sock too. I don't know if the existing articles echoes the deleted one, but I'm guessing it does. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: apologies if you've already seen my above comment, but please could you also do a compare to the other article they've created vs. the previous deleted one? I know it seems trivial, but I'm pretty sure it's the same editor. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Sorry, I'm not following. I think the other article they created is Modhura Palit. You want to know if that compares to what other article? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Persistent dispute at Croatian Air Force

After removing an AIV report that seems to have been an outing attempt, I've had a look at the underlying conflict. Diffs such as Special:Diff/934031454, Special:Diff/934032086 and Special:Diff/924187200 seem to indicate a long-term conflict between FOX 52 and at least one IP editor.

FOX 52, perhaps you could take a moment to explain the situation from your point of view here. The latest escalation at WP:AIV seems to indicate a need for such a discussion, possibly leading to a community ban or block against a user who appears to be attacking you repeatedly. WP:ASPERSIONS seems to be relevant, for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

From my end, it's been constant battle with several IP's (which may be just one individual) - They're gripe seems to be with using outdated / non-English sources, vs. updated English sourcing. (per: WP:NONENG) - I'd suggest a long term semi-protection on the page- FOX 52 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

New user without an interest in providing sources

• VitalSignal (talk · contribs)

Appears to be a good faith editor, but has ignored templates and prefers to add content without sources; more specifically, their 'sources' are meaningless. I'd prefer not to edit war and go to a level four warning, so any assistance would be grand. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• And an apparent minor copyright violation that may require rev/deletion [38]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've done the revision deletion and another admin has issued a short block for disruptive editing. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • My thanks to you both. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
      • PS I've added some helpful links to the user talk page using the welcome-laws template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

edit warring by Human Taxonomist over multiple articles

We have a problem with USER:Human Taxonomist on these articles

• Welsh People on a minor issue in the lede
• English People over a claim the English invented Baseball with talk page discusses there and Origins of baseball just to make life difficult
• Frisians over an issue of numbers
• Dutch people over identity
• Aragonese people on a relationship by genetics issue (just starting there)

There may be others and we have a personal attack removing a warning here and the talk page speaks for itself. Looks like a certain spurt around some strongly held issues after a period with very few edits.

USER:Sirfurboy has rather foolishly edit warred to restore the status quo but I think has stopped

A voluntary 1RR agreement or a block seem options but its down to the community. I haven't been directly involved other than suggesting a compromise of Welsh people -----Snowded ^TALK 20:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would be surprised if this warrants as black a mark as a block, considering the editor's inexperience, even though they seem to be knowledgeable in their field (and in WP editing). Rather, could they be encouraged to take some time to acquaint themselves with WP non-combative behavioural etiquette and collaboration before editing too much more? Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you look people have tried that - a voluntary 1rr might be best but it is a pattern that needs nipping in the bud :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Warned by User:Mutt Lunker[39] on the 31st for unconstructive editing at English people presumably because of this[40] where his edit summary said "no one has replied or continued to sufficient explain their opposition on the talk pages; thus, original edit as per WP will be restored'". At this point on the talk page[41] Mutt and I had disagreed with him but he didn't like what we said, so restored his edit. Some of the same discussion on content was carrying on at the same time at Talk:Origins of baseball with User:Meters also disagreeing with him. I gave him a warning the next day for the same material as he clearly had no consensus. Sirfurboy's warning of the 2nd was removed today with the edit summary "removed unjustified warning from an inflammatory editor" Also today User:Gareth Griffith-Jones warned him about introducing controversial material at Welsh people followed by a warning from User:LindsayH for saying that an editor was being obtuse. Content disputes are not resolved by just ignoring or dismissing the arguments of others, and on these (baseball and the Welsh) he's not had any support for his position. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sad to say, i would not be surprised if this ends up with a block; i have no reason to suspect he's the same user, quite the contrary i expect not, but the actions remind me of Irvine22's from some years ago, who did similar sorts of warring and ignoring until the community had had enough. I don't think that Human Taxonomist has reached that point yet but, should he not take note of current warnings ~ especially this entry at ANI ~ i fear that is where we'll end up, as this is very clearly an issue of an editor's actions, not the content he's arguing over. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 21:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Where do I begin? I have not done anything to merit a block in my opinion. There was, maybe, some 'edit warring' in terms of the revision of one or two articles by myself and User:Sirfurboy at some of these articles. However, WP:3RR was careful not to be breached by either of us. We are, attempting, to compromise on disputes. I sincerely apologize for mistakenly labeling User:Sirfurboy as 'inflammatory' in unwarranted warnings and revisions on my talk page. My intention was to label his edits there as inflammatory, not him personally. In the case of one or two of these disputes, however, I patiently discussed on relevant talk pages and waited for weeks for replies - which often never came until I went on to make edits again. Only then did they come back to (sort of) discuss again - but only to keep their revision in place and remind me "consensus has to be reached" first, but being quite careful to keep their revision in place. It is not my fault if editors just decide to leave instead of making their case of opposition in an edit conflict. User:Doug Weller and User:Matt Lunker, for example, disappeared from the conversation for weeks. How is an issue going to be resolved if they just leave the conversation? Is the policy to 'win' a conflict to simply revise, discuss a bit, then simply leave if the argument is not going your way? You should also be giving a warning to many other users involved here to 'not revert here until consensus is achieved'. Look at what has occurred on many of those articles listed since this unfair "reporting" of me was made: editors like Sirfurboy have just went on themselves to make edits without 'achieving consensus first'. This is hypocritical, and appears to be an attempt by some who disagree with me to stifle my editing privileges. There is no malicious intent here at article disruption, and I try to be careful not to make personal attacks, despite them being labelled at me at times. But I am not perfect, and some users can take any type of 'offence' as a 'personal attack'. The warning made was duly noted, and there is no other example of a 'personal attack' being made. Human Taxonomist (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You returned to Make this edit [42] weeks after Matt Mutt and I had replied to you without you responding, claiming that "(no one has replied or continued to sufficient explain their opposition on the talk page". That's not what I see when I look. Doug Weller talk 23:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest reading the edit history at Talk:English people. I had the last replies in the discussion, and no one replied for weeks until I returned and made the edits restoring my preferred version. Human Taxonomist (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• • I am not sure that you have remained under the 3RR rule. 5 minutes after you deleted my warning on your page that I was concerned you were about to breach the 3RR on the Dutch People page, you reverted me again, here: [[43]]. I said I was not willing to make a complaint about that because I thought you are inexperienced, and with good intent. I asked you to self revert but you did not. However I may have got the count wrong. That was your third revert on that page and I think 3RR actually says you must make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours to breach it. However you also reverted two of my edits on the talk page (the second one after I had objected). So maybe that was a breach of the 3RR, and maybe it wasn't. I don't think it is very careful, however, to make another revert 5 minutes after being warned you are about to breach the 3RR rule. Also I would point out that reversion is kind of a big deal. In 15 years in Wikipedia, you have reverted more of my edits than I have ever had reverted before -in total. You have been directed to talk, but you write something in the talk section and then immediately revert. Now in my attempts to keep to WP:BRD, I have reverted some of your edits too, and as User: Snowded has said, that was unwise of me. However, at no time have I been reverting deliberately until I was just short of the 3RR rule as though that is a magic number. A block can be imposed for any edit warring, and edit warring has definitely been your style.

• WP:3RR says it is violated if more than 3 are made in a 24 hour period. I did not do that in the articles you are referring to. Your claims of innocence in edit warring are false. You have been making just as many reverts of my edits, including routinely before consensus has been reached, and based on a cursory overview of your edit history, you have also done this before. You indeed have also been careful to revert without breaching 3RR, like here [44] (reverting while also making new changes is still covered under 3RR), so that would appear to be a lie. Human Taxonomist (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If you can agree to try a more constructive approach, I would argue to avoid a block for you. But as others have pointed out, the approach must be more constructive. I think you are here with good intent, but we are here together to build an encyclopaedia as a community. That means that when you are asked to await consensus, that is exactly what you should do. If other editors don't agree, then we have to live with that.

That is nice of you, but nothing I have done merits a block. I would further add that the (incorrect) reasons for blocking me would also apply to your own poor editing behaviour. Human Taxonomist (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the inflammatory language towards me, I have a thick skin and have been called worse. I am happy to let that pass, but you will be aware now of the community standard.

I already addressed this. Your edits on my talk page were what was meant to be described as 'inflammatory', not you personally. It has been difficult reasoning with you on one or two topics, but I do not hold any enmity against you or anything. Human Taxonomist (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What really concerns me is the way you have ignored arguments and just repeatedly put back material that has been challenged. That seems to me to be the core issue, and if that can be addressed, perhaps a block can be avoided. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You, yourself, are guilty of the same behaviour. Thus, you really cannot comment on blocking another user for such. I am not editing anything at Frisians until consensus on the talk page is reached. I would add though that simply dragging on the discussion until you 'get your own way' is not constructive, like what is being done at English people. You need to make an attempt at discussing, in detail, the reasons for your opposition. So far, you have not explained how Ethnologue is somehow not a reliable source (it is), nor how the numbers it states specifically for 'ethnic population' are somehow invalid (your personal disagreement with it is not sufficient for its exclusion). The conflict at Welsh people was successfully resolved, so I do not see why the others can't be. I have been conciliatory to a great deal already, for the sake of compromise. It would be helpful for you to show the same courtesy. Human Taxonomist (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I was only involved in the did English people invent baseball question on that article's talk page and on History of baseball, but I would support an edit warring block on that behaviour alone. The user has made the claim that the English invented baseball five times now despite there clearly being no consensus that the material should be included. Note the the fifth time was after I had agreed with the removal and posted to the user on talk:English people [45] and talk:Origins_of_baseball [46]. Human Taxonomist was clearly aware of my objections since he or she replied to both threads [47] [48] before making the final revert [49]. I would have thought that a warning would be sufficient since Human Taxonomist is a new editor, but even after ending up at ANI over this he or she is still attempting to argue the case [50]. Unless the user clearly states an understanding of and agreement to follow the Wikipedia policies on Consensus, Dispute resolution, and Edit warring (WP:CONS WP:DISPUTE and WP:EDITWAR) I think a block (or the 1RR restriction) are necessary. Meters (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would I not continue to argue the case at Talk:English people? The issue hasn't been resolved and never was resolved. Weeks went by with users not replying to my discussion on the talk page, so no consensus has ever been reached. The fact you find issue with this is bizarre. You are another example of a user in that dispute who thinks they can just win the argument by leaving the discussion entirely, and then only return when the revision they oppose is made again and attack a user for doing such because there is 'no consensus'. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, though this type of stonewalling is sadly common on here. You must continue in the discussion, not simply leave because the current revision suits you. Neither you, or User:Doug Weller, or User:Matt Lunker can make a valid argument against listing baseball as an invention by English people. You simply do not like it. That's not good enough. To advocate for an unjustified block is simply more proof you are using this to your advantage to limit my editing privileges. It's not going to work. I only recently reverted a few days ago at that article because no one had replied to my discussion for weeks. I had valid reason to restore my edit, considering others disappeared. ANI is not a place to silence dissenting viewpoints by blocking users you disagree with. Human Taxonomist (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

It's getting difficult to WP:AGF here. I was not part of the earlier discussion, so I am certainly not "another example of a user in that dispute who thinks they can just win the argument by leaving the discussion entirely, and then only return when the revision they oppose is made again". That's a completely baseless accusation. A full four weeks after user:Matt Lunker and user:Doug Weller posted about the issue on Talk:English people you restarted the discussion there with [51] Mutt Lunker replied to you a few hours later, again disagreeing with your analysis, and suggested keeping restarting in the discussion on Talk:Origins of baseball [52]. Instead you dismissed the discussion on the other talk page [53] "In any case, it is the article here where the edit conflict is" and stated that "If no one replies or continues to explain why they oppose my edits, then as per WP I can return my original edit" [54] Nice trick that..reopen a discussion on one page four weeks after the fact, and one in which you had never participated, and claim that since no-one was responding on a different page thread, which you dismissed, you were justified in reverting again. You can't have it both ways. I saw that and responded mere minutes later to agree with the removal and to point out that you did not have consensus [55]. You restored it while I was making my I response, but it is not true that you had "only recently reverted a few days ago at that article because no one had replied to my discussion for weeks" since Matt Lunker had responded. By the time you reverted the final time you had responded to my posts, so you clearly knew that there was an additional editor contesting your edit. You either do not understand the policies I pointed out, or you refuse to accept them. Your response has only confirmed to me that a block is needed. Meters (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, but I posted a major reply at Talk:Origins of baseball on December 4th, as can be seen here [56]. No one replied again until December 31st, and only after I started up discussion again and made edits at English people and Talk:English people on December 30th. I waited patiently, like I said previously, for nearly 4 weeks. Other editors, including yourself, only became involved again when I made changes to English people and the talk page there. The original course of action was to discuss the issue at Talk:Origins of baseball, but no one was responding there for weeks. Leaving a discussion like that is not a consensus or conflict resolution. The fact you all only became involved again once I made edits at English people is strong evidence you, Doug Weller and especially Matt Lunker were stonewalling, as is your complete disregard to come to a compromise. That is not acceptable, and neither is this new attempt to stifle discussion by a ridiculous move to suppress my editing privileges. You, Doug Weller and Matt Lunker were clearly active on Wikipedia throughout December, so why not reply to my discussion? Why all of a sudden take the time to edit only when I restored my preferred revision? It's not going to work, and nothing here merits a block. As for WP:AGF, I'm pretty sure stonewalling behaviour is not acting in good faith. Human Taxonomist (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

{od))You may have made the last reply at Talk:Originis of baseball, but you didn't edit there, you edited at English people where I had made the last reply and thus two editors were opposing you there and you ignored us. Again, this is not the place to litigate content and we may need DRN, but yesterday I realised that it probably revolves around the definition of English people given in the article and Human Taxonomists's (note their username) definition. But it doesn't matter who is right, this is a conduct issue. Doug Weller talk 07:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

How does any of that justify stonewalling for a month? I discussed on the talk page we agreed to do so on. No one replied for almost a month, and not until I made an edit at English people and its talk page. Then and only then did you continue the discussion. I didn't ignore anyone, you did. None of this is relevant here anyway. Human Taxonomist (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just to mention in passing that I think the user name Human Taxonomist is gross. Imagine stuffing a human being! It's barbaric! EEng 09:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lawyering over 3RR, an unwillingess to learn anything or volunteer to change behaviour in any way. We've all seen this before and we know where it leads. @Human Taxonomist: would you accept a voluntary 1RR ban and an agreement to await concensus before taking a rejected edit up again? You can always call a RfC if you feel strongly. -----Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't be bother reading the entirety of the above discussion but there is no way commenting at Talk:Origins of baseball and receiving no reply justifies an assumption that there is a consensus to make a change at English people. Frankly I was extremely confused how these were even related until I read the first post. It's ludicrous to expect people at the English people article must be watching the origins of baseball talk page. It doesn't matter whether you are making a change in relation to the origin of baseball in the English people article. If you feel that it's worth having a centralised discussion relating to an issue that will affect 2 articles, this may be okay. But the discussion needs to be properly advertised in both article talk pages (if it's held in one article talk page, then it needs to be advertised in the other). Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This individual is manifestly not paying heed, whether through unwillingness or inability. Their behaviour is disruptive and can not be allowed to continue. I'd support the measures proposed by User:Snowded.

(For clarity and to assist in locating me (no offence taken), as I'm largely being referred to as "Matt" here, the first word of my handle is "Mutt".) Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Many apologies. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

None required. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay maybe I shouldn't have commented without a quick look at the details. I see now that there was an old discussion on both the English people talk page, and the Origins of baseball talk page, and that Doug Weller suggested it take place on the Origins of baseball talk page and then they and Human Taxonomist had some brief discussion there. I don't think this was particularly obvious from what Human Taxonomist said but anyway, this only makes a small difference to my view.

Even with Doug Weller's suggestion to take it to the origin talk page, if you felt WP:SILENCE from the lack of response indicated consensus, maybe this justified making a change in the origin article. However once you do make a change, if you get pushback, and these people are willing to talk, worrying too much about why they did not reply earlier is pointless. Maybe they missed your reply or didn't think you meant you intended to make a change, maybe they were waiting to see precisely what the change was to see if they would agree with it.

More importantly, since different issues may arise in each article, it provided little justification for assuming there was consensus in the people article, even given Doug Weller's comment. And if you did make a WP:BOLD change, again if people are willing to talk you should engage and have even less reason to worry too much about why they didn't talk earlier.

I'd further note that since the issues seems to concern the origins of baseball more than it does English people, it makes sense that you should get consensus on what to do on the origins article before worrying too much about the people article. Maybe some centralised discussion would be useful but frankly the cross-over is obscure enough that it's probably fine to simply come to a consensus on the origins article. And later if you feel that consensus justifies some change in the history article, to bring a discussion to the people talk page where the specific issues unique to the people article (like WP:UNDUE) can be considered.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Aragonese people on a relationship by genetics issue (just starting there) is listed as one of the disputes above. Checking the edit history, it looks fairly clear this is actually the longest running dispute and that the user is the same as the IP users in that dispute. Jotamar (talk · contribs) may wish to comment here. The IP editor is pushing for the exact same changes and in the same way (repeatedly reverting before discussion has reached consensus). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

USER:Human Taxonomist would you please say if you are prepared to accept the 1RR restriction I proposed above.-----Snowded ^TALK 16:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, there is no need for any restriction. I am being unfairly targeted. Since I last commented here, User:Sirfurboy has reverted - again - without reaching a consensus with me first at some articles we disagree on (see [57] [58]). Unilateral editing and reverting without consensus is apparently ok for him (or her), but not the rest of us. This person is in no position to comment here, and is now trolling all my edits. Someone should be giving this user the same warnings. In any case, whatever edit disputes between us, I think we can resolve. User:Mutt Lunker is guilty of stonewalling until he keeps the version of the article he wants, so his opinion is also irrelevant here. I've heeded User:Doug Weller's advice and decided to drop what was happening at English people. If you want to place a temporary WP:1RR on me for a specified time frame, then fine, but this got really out of hand, for no reason, mostly because of editors trying to silence a dissenting viewpoint. Cheers, Human Taxonomist (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Elaborate on my purported stonewalling. Unless and until you have consensus for your views at the baseball origins article itself, there can be no inclusion of them elsewhere. That you stand alone regarding your content and your behaviour ought to indicate something to you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I already explained further above. You and other editors disappeared for the month of December without replying to the discussion at Talk:Origins of baseball, after my last reply there on December 4th. No one replied to me until I edited again at English people and the talk section there on December 30th and 31st. Am I required to seek you and others out on your talk pages just to get you to reply? The nature of your brief replies and comments was also deliberately obstinate, without an attempt to come to a resolution. In any case, I've dropped it. Human Taxonomist (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

On 1st December at Talk:English_people#Baseball I stated "By all means discuss the actual question of its origin at the baseball article but I have no personal interest in that matter", my interest being that unless you can gain consensus at the baseball article, don't jump the gun at other articles by adding the material there. I was the last participant on that talk page for a month and had specified that I had no interest in the matter at the other, other than you gaining consensus or otherwise. You notably have not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

WE had already agreed to take the discussion to Talk:Origins of baseball as per [59]. I made a major reply there on December 4th [60], and again, no one replied for nearly a month, despite you all being active on here over that time period. Human Taxonomist (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you are not including me in your "WE" (do you think I am User:Doug Weller?), yes that is precisely my point. Unless and until that discussion reaches a resolution, nothing happens at English people the only article I have involved myself in, by specific declaration, reiterated today. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Well as per WP, you have to continue in the discussion until there is a resolution. If not, then eventually my revision is approved. You can't just simply drop two line replies, or no replies at all for weeks, leaving the discussion and assuming that somehow justifies keeping your preferred version of the article. Human Taxonomist (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion I was involved in had ceased on the 1st December, my post being the last. What are you claiming that I did not reply to? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

odMy inclination is for a 1rr restriction for one to three months and then see what happens. What do other editors think?-----Snowded ^TALK 16:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• No more than 1 month, but even that is being extremely harsh. What have I done wrong specifically? Did I violate any policy? Also, does 1RR mean no more than 1 revert per article for a 24 hour period, or only 1 edit in general? Again, please dismiss editors like User:Mutt Lunker who are attempting to use this to silence me, and who has been incredibly uncompromising and uncooperative in the edit dispute we had (which I've now dropped). Human Taxonomist (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

More convinced than ever. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll also note that the subject is currently engaging in further rather bold editing at Dutch people. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding completely reliable sources and information isn't that bold, especially when they fulfilled a request for sources. In any case, I discussed the edits on the talk page I made as per WP:BRD. Human Taxonomist (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Snowded's restriction for one to three months (the former is a bare minimum); i hope it will be sufficient, though, based on his behaviour on this page, arguing, making indefensible statement, misrepresenting the history of the discussions, i fear it will not be. Still, let's be hopeful. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This worries me. He writes above "Well as per WP, you have to continue in the discussion until there is a resolution. If not, then eventually my revision is approved." I've o idea what this means other than perhaps unless he agrees to some resolution he gets to edit as he pleases. It's also more and more obvious looking at Talk:English people that he has little understanding of the need for sources and is using his own analysis, ie original research, to back his edits. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem over s/he has just been indefinately blocked -----Snowded ^TALK 19:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

LTA

Anyone here experienced in LTA? I have a long-time refspammer I would like to list. Guy (help!) 23:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 is the best. Lightburst (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you got a spraycan and a stencil for that? Narky Blert (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

72.185.118.31

72.185.118.31 (talk · contribs) seems to have made only disruptive edits. These last days he has been warned a few times not to make WP:ERA changes. See also the telling change he made (twice) to his talkpage,[61] proving that he is not willing to abide by our MOS guidelines on this issue. Perhaps it is time to block this editor for a month or so, just to get the point across? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin response: Looking through their talk page and contributions, I wonder if this user is interested in being here to build an encyclopedia or here to cause disruption. After continuing to maintain a disruptive presence after being blocked, it seems that this user creates more work for others rather than improving WP. Perhaps they need a longer block or blocked indefinitely.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Together with CaroleHenson's message, perhaps this will talk some sense into this editor. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

IP making same edit at least 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem

We have an IP making the same edit 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem, each time from a different IP-address: [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]. What would be the best course of action? Could somebody here implement it, please? :) Debresser (talk)

• Debresser, let's see if a little rangeblock offers some relief. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The Jerusalem page itself is extended confirmed protected. I am not a big adherent of it, especially on talkpages, but maybe that is also an option, should the rangeblock prove ineffective. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparent legal threat by IP

IP user 98.208.64.39 has posted what appears to be a legal threat at User talk:ToBeFree, threatening "I will be reporting you, should this happen again to both Wikipedia and the German relevant authorities in your nation", apparently in response to a block. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat after ANI-based block

See Special:Diff/934168029, which appears to be about Special:Redirect/logid/104638690. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Merging sections. PohranicniStraze. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked for a little bit longer. ToBeFree, I saw on Facebook that my lawyer lifted 275 pounds in a workout, and I'll put you in touch with him. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

98.111.189.131

98.111.189.131 (talk · contribs) is making non-stop vandalism only edits, despite repeated (including level 4) warnings... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP has a total of five edits, four of them in a recent 20 minutes. They haven't edited since the final warnings. Please report again if there are further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Whydopeoplebother

User:Whydopeoplebother keeps removing or refactoring other users' talk page comments at Talk:Video game exploit. He has been warned by me and User:S0091 to quit, but has blanked his talk page of the warnings and has continued his behavior. His userpage states "A veteran gamer of 30+ years and an experienced game designer. I won't bother replying to complaints about edits, I only remove misinformation and provide more accurate diagnostics. Don't like it? too bad. I'm here to provide educational material, not comply to the bias of the toxic or uninformed." Can an admin try to discuss this with this user, as warnings have not solved the issue? Hog Farm (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked them for 31 hours, with an explanatory note. The user page pretty well says it all. Perhaps someone with better interpersonal skills can reach them.-- Deepfriedokra 05:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I have left a friendly note on their talk, hopefully that will engage a dialogue. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Although point blank removing the comments was clearly inappropriate, I'm not sure that any of those comments are useful for further development of the article. And as they are now all at least 10 years old, I've archived them all. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User blanked their talkpage. They do not seem to be interested in communication.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I just saw that too. Pinging Hog Farm so they are aware as well. Appreciate the effort CaptainEek and Nil Einne. Not sure where to go with this now. Wait and see? S0091 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess just wait out the block and see what the user does after the block expires? Maybe since the talk page comments they were riled up about were archived, the user will desist. Hog Farm (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I would say yes. Editors who refuse to communicate are frustrating and not editing with the collaborative spirit required but I'm reluctant to advocate a block for it unless it's causing problems. The talk page issue is hopefully resolved now that I archived the page. I wasn't aware the editor was also edit warring on the article until now. If they return to that when their block expires, then I longer block is likely in order. If not, we can only hope they don't repeat similar problems elsewhere, and also start to communicate a lot better. If they do earn another block, I would support quick escalation given that their lack of communication makes it difficult to know if they are going to improve. Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The one positive is that we know they saw the messages. Hopefully something will sink in. Fingers crossed, anyway. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate claims

I try to edit article "Statuta Valachorum" to be as accurate as possible and editor Sadko (talk · contribs) makes unacceptable claims. I quote: "because this is some new sort of revisionism" "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles" {I am just reading what is in front of me. I do not need help of any sort, I do my own work. The current text is a Frankenstein-like creation and I plan to alert various Wiki projects of any problems, bad use of sources and lack of consensus, because this is some new sort of revisionism - and we already have enough of it in the Balkans. The idea is pretty much simple (and this is not addressed to you Ktrimi); one should add Vlach where there is a mention of Serbs in modern-day Croatia. It will furthter prove that Serbs of Croatia are only some poor Vlachs, and that they were brainwashed to become Serbs by the Serbian Orthodox Church, which can be later used for daily politics. Vlah holds the same meaning for Serbs as Šiptar does for Albanians... I hope that you will have this in mind. This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles. I claim that this is only a more sophisticated form of bias driven POV, which can be seen from the whole body of work. And no, I am not attacking anyone, just analysing what I can see here and telling you what you are taking a part of, because I guess that your knowledge of Serbo-Croatian circles and various data is limited. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktrimi991#Statuta_Valachorum"}. It would mean that my involvement in editing Wikipedia is revisionism and close to Nazism and Ustasha regime. I want that this clames be harshly punished and not to be repeated again. I am here in good faith and please respect me as a person. If this needs to be reported elsewhere please direct me to the right place, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, which I think is the case here. Everything which I said is correct, I stand by all of it and every Balkan editor is aware of those facts. I did not say that it has anything to do with Nazism, please do not play the victim when you do not have to. You made a logical mistake right there. I said that it is used in those circles, and it is, which is rather alarming. I have a duty to my ancestors who were fighting various dictatorial regimes to point to any possibility of such ideological moments dominating editing of a noble project such as Wikipedia. Revisionism and creative entepretation of history should have no place on Wikipedia. These are great articles covering some of these issues, you can use Google translate and I can help you with translation of some parts, if the Google's tool fails.(Бранимир Марковић: Хрвати сви и свуда, EPOHALNO OTKRIĆE Bošnjački akademik: "Vučić i Srbi iz BiH poreklom su Vlasi") Thank you very much for reporting this as in incident; this is the way Mikola thinks he can edit controversial articles, just take a look at this creative editing, so to say - I am deleting this part "(mainly Serbs)" because this requires consensus, the other sources(books etc) do not mention mainly Serbs as Orthodox refugees in that part of Croatia ie Varaždin Generalat and evidence for this is provided in the sources I cite below throughout the page. The direct source mentions Serbs. 2) Here I add Vlachs because there are no historical documents that mention Serbs in Vienna otherwise this Serbian source(book) Serbs were also mentioned in the source... More of it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktrimi991#Statuta_Valachorum Thank you for your patience regarding these messy Balkan issues. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to prove that I was not overreacting and that I am not paranoid, here are some of the diffs in which the same user, Mikola22, cites wartime fascist officials as if they were RS - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_Orthodox_Church&diff=925377120&oldid=925375409&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bjelopavlići&diff=925371428&oldid=924037952&diffmode=source and more on Sremska Mitrovica and other articles. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's previous blocks I'm wondering if this should be seen as an WP:AE issue - if blocks don't work, a topic ban may be the solution. I don't know much about this issues but I'll ping the Admins involved before with the blockes. @TomStar81, Yamla, and Bbb23: any opinions? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug, I don't know which editor you're referring to. All I know is that both editors have been disruptive lately, and that needs to stop. I don't know enough about the topic area to comment about AE, one of my least favorite forums on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: fair enough, you blocked both this week. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in the beginning I used data of that historian and I did not know that this historian is forbidden in Wikipedia(otherwise, to this day I have never heard that he is forbidden here), that historian lived and died in Yugoslavia without any sanctions, how could I assume that he has something to do with fascism? I didn't know until then that it had something to do with fascism (this book has doctoral dissertation defense and I thought it was RS). The book is from 1937 and Croatian edition 1991, and today is in all libraries in Croatia especially in Catholic institutions and is used as a source in books or scientific works by Croatian historians or in school system. Otherwise I only put information from the Vatican archives(original archival material) that he has in the book. Therefore from the first day I started editing Wikipedia he saw fascists and Nazis in me. Here I give my energy and knowledge to improve the articles as much as possible while he uses hate speech instead of working in good faith. Therefore, I demand a harsh punishment and that such things no longer happening. I'm not a fascist and a nacist. I am from Croatia and I respect everyone, but this hate speech must be sanctioned. I spend my days here making articles better he offends me in the worst possible way. Mikola22 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I refute the notion that I was (deliberately) disruptive, it is just that admins are sometimes rather busy and have too much on their plate and so they just count reverts (going by the book) and do not have the time to look at the content and the nature of reverts more deeply, which is often the case with issues which are not in their original sphere of interest (Balkan history and what not). I was a collateral damage of one Wiki rules while trying to defend an article from addition of dubious sources, bold edits without consensus and manipulation with sources, as seen above. I rest my case and I am even surprised that this was brought over here, because, in my mind, it's nothing more than looking for reasons to report people, and finding offenses which do not exist in the original text. Historian is forbidden? P.S: The editor who mostly works on articles about history of the region apparently had no knowledge about works by a prominent local fascist official. I simply don't belive it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have promised to the two editors that I will help them find a solution to the said content dispute. It is not a difficult one, just patience and careful use of reliable sources are needed. One thing I would say is that @Sadko: should stop making personal attacks, aspersions and assumptions about other editors. It is sometimes impossible to have a proper discussion with him on controversial stuff. @Doug Weller: is right that such issues are AE ones. Sadko, if an experienced editor, not Mikola22, reported you at AE, no doubt a topic ban would be the result. You have produced massive amounts of evidence against yourself. One just needs to take a quick look at your comments on talk pages and edit summaries, where you continuously accuse other people of having certain goals on Wikipedia and so on. You need to reflect. Sadko and Mikola22 are keen on writing new content, so good faith and cooperation can solve the content issues. I plan to propose some edits on the article soon to help the two editors. Till then they best do not edit the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991:I came to your talk page with suggestion to tell me what to do next, I have exposed all the changes and sources which I have(and there are more sources) to make article accurate as possible. Editor Sadko comes to your talk page not to make a joint decision in peace to improve accuracy of that article(Statuta Valachorum) but to talk about my edits as Nazi and fascist. This is not right. It is evident that his actions are not in good faith. I have been searching for data and RS sources for this article throughout whole week but it doesn't matter to him, he mentions Ustashes. Mikola22 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Iam not making personal attacks and there is no "massive amount" of anything, that is simply not completely true. I am having in mind that we different views on a number of things.

This is a fine example that I am doing no such thing; I attacked the text, the content, the way in which sources are used and not anybody personally. That can be seen on your TP, for starters. I am sorry if you do not like what I was able to read into. I can agree with the last sentence. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment that I have a duty to my ancestors who were fighting various dictatorial regimes to point to any possibility of such ideological moments dominating editing is rather confusing. I think that editing Wikipedia is not a "duty" to our ancestors, and should not seen as such. Anyways guys, the new year is in its first days so we better focus on other things right now. I will soon ping you two on my talk page with a proposal on the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Idk if @Doug Weller: or @Bbb23: or someone else wants to close this discussion before it becomes too long. This might be better suited for AE rather than ANI/I. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing by Mikola22 is very tendentious. He uses different methods, at first he tried to make his own interpretations of primary sources, then he used outdated sources of 19th century and fascist historians. Now this is cherrypicking and strong violation of the "weight" rule. But his bias remains the same.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes at first I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia and I thought that Wikipedia was based on original information ie sources, if I used outdated sources I dont know what should that mean, I thought every source was RS and now I use the latest data. This fascistic historian are in every Catholic library in Croatia, and this historian is also mentioned in some schools master's thesis and other Croatian historians use his data. I used his information from Vatican archives and I no longer use it even though it is a valuable source of information in Croatia. Therefore I once again ask that this attack on me is properly punished because I'm neither a Nazi nor a fascist. We must understand that Croatia has a history which is based on historical sources while someone does not like that. I have already found more forgerys that existed in articles about Serbs from Croatia and editor Sadko did not want to accept that editing in peace and obviously this is a problem for someone here. However, we all work together to make articles accurate as possible. If someone does not like some historical facts this is not a reason for insults me with hate speech that I am a follower of fascists and Nazi Croatians. Mikola22 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's more recent information on the fascist historian I quote: "Croatian Cultural Society Napredak Zadar and the Archdiocese of Zadar organize the presentation of Proceedings from the International Scientific Symposium Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović - Priest, Historian and Patriot" Welcome word: Msgr. Želimir Puljić, Archbishop of Zadar and President of Episcopal Conference of Croatia(2015). Does not mean that Croatian Catholic bishops are fascists because they promote Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović. At first I thought it was RS and my intention was to present some information about Catholics from the Vatican archives.Mikola22 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the problem: Mikola is eager to find the arguments for whitewashing, but he, for some reason, failed to see numerous sources about Ustashe background of Krunoslav Draganović. And the similar story is repeated with his edits again and again.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in fascists and Ustashas and I do not know who is Krunoslav Draganovic. I only know that he is a patriot in the Croatian Catholic church. And I used information from his book from the Vatican Archives, the book is from 1937 and 1991. And now I know this facts. Therefore calling me a follower of Nazis and fascists for editing some article in good faith should be harshly punished. Mikola22 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No one says that you are Ustash. But you make a tendentious selection of information. For you, Krunoslav is a patriot and a Catholic, and you do not notice everything else. And you do the same thing with every "Croatian" issue.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Krunoslav Draganovic is patriot for Croatian Catholic Church not for me. I put information from his book(Vatican archives) at the beginning of Wikipedia editing because I only knew this fact about him. Today some others historian use his book as a source of information. For you he is a fascist and for the Croatian Catholic Church he is a patriot. I do not research his works or his history because I am not interested in it, I am interested in information from books to make Wikipedia accurate as possible. You are probably obsessed with Krunoslav Draganovic but I didn't know who he was. You have to know that Croatia also has a history and we must respect it no matter how much you dislike it. I respect Serbian history but we also need to enter information from the Croatian view. I know this is a problem for you and Sadko but we need to make Wikipedia more accurate and better. If I do it in good faith that is no reason to compare me to fascists and Nazis. Mikola22 (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You are probably obsessed with Krunoslav Draganovic Here is another problem. Instead of apologizing for your errors you are starting acquisitions on other editors. It was your job to find out who is the author of the source that you tried to use.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

After administrator rejected his proposal in White Croats article this is how editor Nicoljaus expresses his good faith (White Croats talk page) I quote: "A simple “fuck off” would help to express the same thought much shorter. And with about the same level of validity.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)" Therefore this statement is clearly not in good faith but no one accuses you of insulting administrator decision. You were just angry and that is why such a reaction but it's not my fault for such decision of administrator.Mikola22 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, here is diffirent story. I was naive and thought that there was just a technical question and a misunderstanding. However, it turned out that in certain circles they still talk about the giant White Croatia from Elbe to Dnieper with its seat in Krakow. And to protect this ancient myth, a real mobilization was carried out. I have learned a lot of new things there!--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Oldperson – personal attacks despite awareness of WP:NPA

Oldperson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The talk page where the latest offensive behavior occurred is Talk:TERF, in which this editor accused User:Crossroads of having an "anti trans POV" (1). This editor has indulged an "us vs. them" contemptuous behavior in gender-related articles in which editors he/she disagrees with are accused of being anti-transgender and a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist): (2).

I first experienced confrontational behavior from this editor here (3). He/she followed this by referring to me as "transphobic TERF P...S..." in an editor's talk page (4). Antagonistic comments posted by this editor include describing editors as "TERFS allied with homophobes" and "adept at manipulating the guidelines like NPOV and AGF" (5). He/she made the accusation that, in an article, there is "a conspiracy or at least a organized group effort" among some editors (6).

This editor is very well aware of various Wikipedia policies. Besides admitting to being aware of "the rules about personal attacks" (7), the editor was made aware that gender-related topics are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions (8).

He/she has been warned by at least three editors I'm aware of about making accusations and personal attacks against other editors: (9), (10), (11); about improper summaries (12); about edit warring (13); about using talk pages as a forum (14). The editor has also invited other editors who favor his/her editing decisions to intervene on his/her behalf and help circumvent WP's edit warring policy: "Since edit warring is verboten and there is a 1rr perhaps another editor would consider reverting the revert" (15)

I responded to the recent personal attack, on the particular article talk page, against User:Crossroads (16) , and posted a warning on User:Oldperson's talk page about the incivility towards another editor (17). The response from User:Oldperson:

"I take notice that you have jumped into the frey in defense of your cohort, or is it a case of a stuck pig squeals. Apparently you identify with my comments and critique. if not then you would not have reacted as you did.. I tire of your condescension and threats. You apparently believe that you are my superior, that your own bias is hidden behind wikilawyering and skirting PaG.. If you want to take me to ANI do so, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. My advice to you is that you tone it down and cease being a pro-TERF, anti Trans advocate Your bias is as transparent as the panes in my front window.. Maya d'Angelo said "If a person tells you who they are believe them". There are many ways to tell what a person is, other than verbal confesssion. "By their fruits they will be known". There are at least three editors on TERF that do not disguise their POV, as one can easily ascertain such from their edits." (18).

This editor cannot claim ignorance of Wikipedia policies. Many editors have made him/her aware of them, and several others of his/her unacceptable behavior. This editor needs to refrain from engaging in any further accusations and personal attacks against any editor. It may also be best for all editors of, or interested in, gender-related topics if this editor was blocked from being involved in gender-related subjects. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldperson is very much a problem. Pretty much every interaction I've had with them has been unpleasant. This user well illustrates why competence is required. This isn't a social network; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and this user is not competent to do that.

Here are some further examples of Oldperson's personal attacks and incompetence:

Details

Personal attacks To MarioGom: Since you asked my opinion. I think that you might be a TERF or TERF adjacent, oops didn't mean to be accusatory afterall we are supposed to AGF,but you asked for opinions. [72] (mentioned above; this shows that Oldperson knows it is against AGF) The above is an unsubstantiated ad hominem, by an editor who does not have ability or credibility to make such statements. (Was not an ad hominem, as can be seen.) [73] Doubles down: My comment was directed to Crossroads and not Newimpartial. [74] "[Haukurth]'s back to back edits here and here appear to be one sided, TERF protective." [75] tq template not working for this one I really want to be respectful of editors, I really do, but frankly your response is obfuscatory, and that is playing nice. Havine a "balanced" quote in a reference just doesn't cut it. Those who find this article in a search and read it, very seldom if ever bother to click on the citations and when they do they don't read them, so all that J.Q. Public gets is one side of the argument. I also noticed that you used WE in your response. This then is a coordinated effort between you, Haukurth and Crossroads. I find that interesting. [76] Personal bias and agenda are not legitimate justifications for the reversion or edit, remember WP:NPOV, not so long as you are an editor [77] your comment above is simply your own opinion, which quite apparently is strongly anti trans POV....Oh did I accuse you of not AGF or having an ulterior motive. I certainly did, maybe it is bad form, and Wikipedians aren't suppose to resort to such, however considering your very firm, often stated critical position and your self admitted interest in human sexuality. Stating that you appear to be transphobic is not an unjust or unwarranted accusation, it arises from your hundreds or is it thousands of edits. [78] (Pyxis Solitary quoted this one briefly above; it's worth being quoted more fully.) Casting aspersions Articles like this generally attact editors who have an interest in human sexuality, advocates and opponents. The opponents obviously outnumber the advocates... [79] Incompetence In response to DIYeditor evaluating a source: Who are you to judge the quality? [80] This brief discussion, with quotes like Who do you think you are talking to anyway? and your choice of quotes is sensationalism, prurient and inappropriate for the general public, especially the young folk who might access the page. [81] Even though the article already had academic sources: Peer reviewed academic articles are not appropriate, nor will they be found....The only sources that make sense or those found in the common realm, which includes (at this point) Youtube and self published sources. [82] Editing a quote from a source: [83] Editing another's comment: [84] Misusing talk page as forum: [85][86][87]

DIYeditor described their behavior well as trigger-happy accusations of POV. [88] And so did Aircorn when he said they treat this place more like a reddit forum than an encyclopaedia. [89] As Pyxis Solitary noted, Mathglot made Oldperson aware of the discretionary sanctions; she also noted that Oldperson was warned about their problem behaviors by Starship.paint, GPRamirez5, Jayjg, and others. I've wondered before if this editor is as bad in their other editing areas; based on the fact that they have received warnings from editors that I have not interacted with and that likely came from these areas, I strongly suspect that this is so.

At minimum, I think this editor should be topic banned from gender as Pyxis Solitary suggests. However, I truly believe Oldperson's general incompetence despite being instructed and warned over and over again makes them a net negative to the project, so I would support an indefinite block. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I partially agree with you. if a block is issued, I would support the block, but not indefinite. I think a temporary block is a good answer to this because I would like to see if this user makes constructive contributions after the block is over. If the same behavior continues after the block, then I would support an indefinite block. Interstellarity (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll just note that while personal attacks are unacceptable there is some editing and argumentation which seems at least subtly sympathetic to transphobic viewpoints going on. Oldperson may not have handled it well but at least some of the things that make them shout at least make me raise an eyebrow.

I'm not sure what to recommend part from saying that an indefinite block is definitely not appropriate in the first instance. My advice to Oldperson is to be incredibly polite to people who might be editing with a POV and to always argue the point not the person. If they are pushing a POV this will reveal itself soon enough and then that can be followed up on through the correct channels, not by blasting them on Talk. I would also recommend that as many experienced editors as possible (preferably those who are familiar with transphobic rhetoric, euphemisms and dogwhistles) keep an eye on the articles in question. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Note that I fully protected TERF for 2 weeks. I also left Oldperson a warning that were they to continue to behave in this way, a topic ban from the gender topic area may soon follow. Basically, they need to discuss the content in a matter-of-fact way, while at the same time, avoid speculating on the motives of opponents. Hopefully, my warning will be heeded. Depending on their response, I may end up closing this request with no further action. We'll see. El_C 02:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Oldperson engages in personal attacks and incompetent behavior for months on end, is warned repeatedly, continues the same behaviors despite admittedly knowing the rules, and all they get is a slap on the wrist, and is rewarded by having the version which they edit-warred for [90] locked in for 2 weeks? -Crossroads- (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

There are so many diffs that could have been included in my ANI statement about this editor's behavior towards other editors, but it would have been too much. Just so you know, he/she accused an Admin of WP:STALK (19), insulted the Admin, which led said Admin to state in the summary: "Go away. do not come back." (20). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I see... Well, in any case, let's see if they can shape up from here on out. El_C 03:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

If Oldperson fails to engage the article talk page (doing in so in a civil and collegial way), I will revert the protected page to the other version. But the version that got protected — that was random. El_C 03:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies and TonyBallioni - from the diffs above I see these two admins have dealt with this user before. I also think this report should be open for longer so more with experience with the user have time to comment. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Until Oldperson provides guarantees that their behaviour will be up to par from now on, this report will not be closed. El_C 03:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I remember that editor. Very unfortunate, but by the same token I would have expected them to be on the verge of an indefinite block much sooner. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have only ever encountered Oldperson in relation to the TERF article so have no comments on their ability at other articles. Ignoring the POV and personal attacks (which by themselves should be enough for at least a topic ban) they clearly lack the competency to edit this area or are simply WP:NOT HERE. I won't add much to the diffs above, but just point to a conversation started by them at my talk page after I reverted their change to another editors talk page comment (User talk:Aircorn/Archive 11#You speak nonsense). I basically suggested an ignore them approach unless they started fooling around in article space. Since there last three edits at TERF have been a slow burn edit war [91][92][93] which has now lead to it being locked for 2 weeks they have gone beyond being an annoying talk page presence to actually harming the encyclopaedia. AIRcorn (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Given the amount of errors introduced in his recent edit to TERF (discussed at Talk:TERF#Edit request: Fix the italics and spacing in the lead. and User talk:Oldperson#Please be more careful with your reverts.) and the problems with the majority of their other edits I think we need an indef for competency reasons alone. We are all volunteers here and it is hard enough working in controversial areas at the best of times. An editor who can't or won't adhere to even simple editing practices is a timesink we can do without. AIRcorn (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was quite frustrated with Oldperson when I first encountered them, less for POV reasons than CIR (despite being warned about it: constant FORUMing, clobbering others edits, not using preview, not indenting properly). This last edit that has been locked in at TERF is another CIR example. For no reason it clobbers potentially useful edits by other editors to go back to Oldperson's preferred version. Oldperson does not even care if the edits they are obliterating are by other ostensible trans-allies (in Oldperson's schema). As to calling other editors anti-trans there is some subjectivity to this so we can give Oldperson some degree of leeway to point out the issue, but many of these comments are bordering on the same FORUM problem they have been warned about many times, and are markedly unCIVIL. I will be interested to see if Oldperson is able to reply here to all these issues. As always, I think if someone can explain their missteps and assure ANI it won't happen anymore, a final chance is in order. I do feel they've already been strongly cautioned by Drmies. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• My primary concern with this user is their almost near constant encroachment into FORUM territory. I’ve seen it on at least a dozen pages. Note that this isn’t restricted to gender-related issues. They’re arguably just as active on AmPol pages, especially those related to Trump. It’s not that they don’t *occasionally* have decent points, or the rare decent edit, it’s the “heat to light” ratio. There are definite civility and CIR issues with this user, and a ton of people have tried to help, to little avail. Honestly... There doesn’t seem to be a capacity for collegial editing right now. That’s not to say that they couldn’t improve, but aside from their grandstanding and straddling the line of personal attacks, their inability to successfully ping most users after almost a year (as just one example) isn’t encouraging as to their competence. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Note that when Oldperson attacked me ([94]), it was our first interaction as far as I can tell, and it was in response to a completely civil proposal I made in an article talk page. I finished my proposal with the sentence What do you think? as a friendly way to ask other editors for feedback. Oldperson appeared out of the blue to attack me, explicitly trying to use AGF as a shield and implying that because I asked for opinions he was entitled to attack me. I think this is one of the most blatant personal attacks I've received both on any wiki. --MarioGom (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding this obvious conspiracy theory, that a Wall Street businessman and Woodrow Wilson advisor "financed Bolshevism and the rise of Hitler and National Socialism", looks pretty worrying, especially in light of some of their talk page comments like this. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• RaiderAspect, that is seriously troubling, and I am hoping more admins will take a look at it. TonyBallioni, would you like mustard or mayo with your daily Jewish conspiracy theory? And I wonder if there's a couple of editors who can look at Antony C. Sutton, so that the article doesn't merely parrot the man's books. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Oldperson has replied on their user talk page: [95] It's just more paranoia, personal attacks, and refusal to change. Combining that with the latest competency issues detailed above, I trust the admins know what needs to be done. Pinging Drmies, El_C, (TonyBallioni already pinged). -Crossroads- (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I remember when this editor helped me in tea house board. He was a nice guy. I see that he has strong opinions, he says he is old. Most of my friends are old people. People even call me an old person because I am always with them. I believe they are usually wiser than the younger generation. I understand why oldperson was blocked but I think that if he appealed and said that he is not going to violate civility policy in Wikipedia then I think he should be unblocked. This is what a wise person would do. I have been blocked before because of civility issue with a provocative editor who turned out to be a sockpuppet. At that time, I was new and I came from Twitter where civility was not an issue. In any case, I think User:Oldperson has a second chance. I hope other editors would forgive him.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

I’ve blocked based on the totality of the above, which I feel is WP:TE or pure CIR. Don’t really care which one, a block is needed, and the only way they should be allowed to edit again is if they can have a discussion and we receive assurances that the behaviours demonstrated won’t be repeated. This means indefinite, as it forces the discussion. Note indef is not infinite. I’m on vacation and about to leave my home country for a week or so, so my connection will be more limited than normal. Any admin is free to remove this block without consulting me if they feel it is no longer needed and that the concerns have been addressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I support this move. I didn't say anything earlier but although I strongly disagree with Pyxis Solitary's and probably Crossroads's views, IMO calling editors TERFs is a step too far into the personal attack line unless it's something they use to describe themselves. Perhaps saying someone has anti transphobic views is justifiable in some cases, but there's no need to use terms like TERF. Note that I supported using the term in articles without attribution if the sources support it (which the community didn't agree with), so it's not like I have some hatred of the term. I haven't looked at the other stuff but IMO it's enough to justify an indef if OldPerson has given no indication they will stop. (As some may know, I'm a strong proponent of indef even for regulars when we require some behavioural change and the editor has shown a strong resistance to such a change, under the indef isn't infinite, or even potentially very long.) Nil Einne (talk)

Nil Einne, I don't have TERF/anti-trans/transphobic views. These articles do however attract a few with very strong activist views, resulting in some attempts to skew articles into saying things in wikivoice that are not proper and to advocate one societal POV in order to promote social change, which really undermines Wikipedia's persuasiveness in the end anyway. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:ADVOCACY and all that. Oldperson was like that. That is why I keep an eye on that article. You also stated, Perhaps saying someone has anti transphobic views is justifiable in some cases, but there's no need to use terms like TERF, but anti-trans and transphobic are pretty clearly worse than TERF. They obviously are personal attacks. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

2001:E68:540E:8007:FC2D:19D:2A9B:5C48

user:2001:E68:540E:8007:FC2D:19D:2A9B:5C48 is adding unsourced content after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user inserting fake names to BLP articles

Rolleygiacalone is repeatedly adding letters to people's names or simply changing names on BLP articles. To put it bluntly, they seem to be mostly just making shit up. Here in one of their latest additions we see them changing the name of the person the article is about from "Nellee Hooper" to "Paul Andrew "Nellee" Hooper" without any source or any mention of this name in the rest of the article. Further examples can be found here, here, here, here & here. This disruption has been going on for some time across many articles as can be seen on their contributions page and despite my repeated warnings and personal pleas they continue regardless. It should also be noted that they do not seem receptive at all to discussing their disruptive behavior. Please could an admin cast an eye. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the user; I don't think they are aware of their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot! Besides the reversion edit summaries I gave, do you not think they receive a red notification and yellow bar at the top of the page notifying them? It also seems weird that they discovered their user page but not their talk page. Regardless, I'll keep an eye. Thanks again. Robvanvee 16:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Robvanvee It's possible they weren't aware of the message or what they state. People view webpages in different ways. What is obvious to you or me is completely obscure to others. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I would note that although the editor's changes are inappropriate due to the lack of sources, I don't think they're making stuff up. For example, in the Simon Law case, our article currently says sometimes credited as Simon A. Law and a quick search finds non RS stuff like [96]. "Nellee" sounds a lot like a stage name to me and a quick search finds non RS or other unsuitable sources like [97] and a company record. Bernard Sumner I found [98]. Rolleygiacalone could have added to IMDb but more likely they got it from IMDb. (The other name also appeared on IMDb for Nellee.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I should clarify I'm not suggesting any different course of action because of this. The opposite in fact. If the editor were making stuff up, frankly we probably should be considering an indef or at least final warning. Since they just appearing to be just appear to be adding stuff which is potentially true and at least didn't originate from them, but without adding suitable sources (which may not even exist); we should be more tolerant and try and help them understand our requirements so they can become a good editor. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah perhaps due to my frustration I did jump to conclusions and as such have struck that comment. Thanks for clearing that up Nil but as you say non RS so I guess it becomes a BLP issue. I'll keep an eye on this user and if this persists I'll re-attempt to explain. Thanks all. Robvanvee 15:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

possible violation of editing restrictions

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really wish I wasn't here and we didn't have to have this conversation, but it seems Rich is probably violating his community-imposed editing restrictions. I didn't go looking for this issue, I have a lot of U.S. geographic locations on my watchlist and Rich lit it up with these changes the last day or so. As logged at WP:RESTRICT#Placed by the Wikipedia community the restriction reads as follows:

Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

Here is a fairly representative sample of the hundreds and hundreds of edits Rich has made in the past few days, at impossibly fast speeds (about one edit every six seconds while active). By my read of the restriction, it completely forbids making cosmetic edits. Changing {{commonscat}} to {{Commons category}} is basically a textbook example of a useless cosmetic edit. It is also arguable that changing "residing" to "living" is basically cosmetic as it does not effect the readability of the text, residing being an easily understood word. In my opinion the last thing we need is another user going on a jihad against a word they don't like. We also don't need edits that don't improve articles. The above restriction is overly wordy, but is doesn't appear to me to give him cover making purely cosmetic edits if he adds a silly, pointless edit to the prose at the same time and calls it "cleanup" in the edit summary. The whole thing seems like an exercise contrived to more or less comply the exact wording of the restriction while violating the spirit of it. In short, I think overall Rich is a decent guy and an asset to the project, but these edits are not of real value and appropriate action should be taken to curtail this sort of activity. (I'm going to be extremely busy for the next few days so I'm basically leaving this here for the community to decide without me, if I'm totally wrong about this, so be it.) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes totally wrong, stock AWB changes are permitted. Pity you didn't talk to me first. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC).

I didn't talk to you first because I knew from previous experience that you would say something exactly like this. I'm not asking you, I'm asking the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an administrator noticeboard, not a community noticeboard, there is rarely a need to bring something up here (or indeed any noticeboard) before discussing it with the other editor. It's not collegial for starters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC).

• Sorry, but just glancing at contribs, I see 14 edits at 19:55 5 Jan 20 (one every 4 seconds or so) changing "residing" to "living". I don't think these are improvements; to me, this is more like adding a space and deleting it. I agree that "change one word across all articles" is almost never a good approach. These edits don't appear to violate the weirdly-specific wording of the prohibition quoted above, but nevertheless, I'm not in favor of these kinds of mass edits (changing "residing" to "living"). – Levivich 20:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I understand that you are not in favour of the substantive change, and that's fine, we can have a discussion about that - elsewhere. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC).

• Not just 14 - there are thousands of them (I counted around 9,000 in the last 24 hours alone). Very odd behaviour indeed. (Incidentally, {{commonscat}} -> {{Commons category}} is indeed an AWB builtin, so it doesn't violate the sanction). Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) This does appear to be a violation of the sanctions, although I'm more concerned that Rich's recent edits (within the past 24 hours [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]) do nothing but inflate his edit count—just changing "residing" to "living" without making any other substantive changes to those pages does not improve the encyclopedia. That sort of tendentious editing is in itself disruptive, in that by looking at his recent contributions, he's doing this approximately 10 times per minute. Thus I think just nitpicking if Rich violated his restrictions or not de-emphasizes the real issue and ignores what is a symptom of a bigger problem. So if we're going to nitpick whether Rich violated his restrictions of not, then I don't see how Rich editing at monstrously fast speeds (flooding recent changes and watchlists whilst making no improvements to the encyclopedia) should be anything short of the main focus of this discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• The editing restriction is about cosmetic changes to wiki markup. One may dispute the worth of changing "living" to "residing" as much as one wishes, but it is neither cosmetic nor wiki markup. Sorry, but this seems like somebody is looking what to complain about, and I'd dismiss this thread summarily. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) But making bot-like edits of this sort is disruptive. We've had cases like this before where editors were making bot-like edits and that user was restricted to no more than four edits per minute. I don't think there needs to be a repeat of that of any sorts. I'm not too concerned with the editing restrictions myself whether he violated them or not, but his recent contributions clearly show that he's doing this at machine-like speed. It's the whole making changes without making changes at mass speed that's disruptive and a cause for concern. There's no improvement to these pages or any noticeable change to these pages just from changing "residing" to "living" amongst all the other tiny changes he's making at this kind of speed.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned above, other editors may view formal language as a good thing. And we can by all means have a discussion about whether or not it is. But there are fora for that that are not AN/I. Beeblebrox has claimed this is a violation of my editing restriction. It is not. Branching out into other areas which have not been discussed in a collegial way at a suitable venue is not helpful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC).
      

It might be better to instead have a discussion about this via a WP:Request for comment. From the above discussion, it sounds as if there's no actual violation of a Wikipedia policy or of the editing restrictions; merely making small edits quickly and efficiently is not in and of itself a violation of the rules as far as I can tell. There does seem to be a dispute about the quality of the edits being made, but that seems to be a content or stylistic issue. Michepman (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just got home, good to see some decent input here. As I mentioned in my initial statement here, there may not technically be a violation of this very bespoke restriction, even though the edits in question don't actually improve articles. What I didn't mention is that this restriction, and one other restriction regarding mass article creation, are the final artifacts of a years-long effort to get Rich to stop making these mass edits of dubious value without a prior consensus. This has already been the subject of an arbcom case, and Rich was desysoped and prohibited from using any sort of automated tools for a number of years. It is therefore more than safe to assume he was aware that deciding all on his own that a certain word was now verboten and just running some sort of process to remove it entirely from thousands of mainspace articles very well might be seen as disruptive. I feel like given his reaction so far it is important for all participants to understand that this is not as out-of-the-blue as he is acting like it is. Nobody should be able to decide all their own that a certain word is always wrong and make mass changes like this, and there's no possible way any thought is going into the individual edits,there are simply too many too fast. Rich is apparently quite upset that upset I didn't talk to him first, but given his past history and previous extreme WP:IDHT behavior around exactly this type of issue that simply didn't seem to be an effective way of dealing with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the narrative you are spinning here. You are the person who has refused to engage in a collegial manner, closing down discussion with me both here and on your talk page. It's clear, and should have been clear to you before you posted that this is not a violation. Therefore even mentioning that is an attempt to poison the well, as indeed is most of your post above.

As seems to be the consensus, we can have a discussion about the use of language in articles, by all means. When I attempted to engage you about this, you shut down the discussion.

I cannot help you unless you are prepared to engage in with me on what your substantive issue is. I am prepared to wait until you are less busy, in a few days, my talk page is always open.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC).

• We do not need an RfC to know that it is highly disruptive for an editor to decide to change thousands of articles from "residing" to "living" without prior discussion. I see a claim of "thousands" above—is it really that many? I assume there has been no prior discussion—is that correct? What about the fact that edits like this are marked minor? An edit that is cosmetic is prohibited, and it's hard to envisage what other kind of routine edit should be flagged as minor—changing a word is definitely not minor. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems absurd to be condemned for making a change both because it is not minor, and also because it is too minor. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC).

At a quick count, it is indeed between 8,000 and 9,000 American localities over the last few days, yes. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that the AWB change of replacing "commonscat" with "commons category", a rather pointless change already made on thousands of pages and probably scheduled for thousands more (commonscat is, after all these changes, still used on more than 100,000 pages, without causing any issues or problems), was added by Rich Farmbrough himself to the AWB page in September 2019 [104]. This is basically an editor deciding themselves which edits don't violate their editing restriction by putting it in the AWB list first, and then making the edits. Either remove the restriction or reverse his mostly unnecessary AWB list additions and prohibit him from editing that page as well. It should be trimmed back down to only list incorrect template redirects (typos or confusing, unclear names). "Before adding a rule here you must ensure that there is consensus in favour of the template renaming.", which doesn't seem to exist for most or all of the additions made by Rich Farmbrough on that page over the last year95% of these changes. Fram (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course you don't mention that this was removed by you along with almost everything else there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC).

More than 2 1/2 years before you reinstated it. And I discussed my edits on the talk page, and most things I removed were approved by two others (with no objections), and the remainder was restored. Previous discussions (at e.g. ANI and AN) had shown that these unnecessary template replacements (from one very commonly used version, like "commonscat", to another) were seen as disruptive (flooding watchlists and page histories without an actual benefit) and had lead to blocks and other sanctions. Fram (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wait – an editor who is subject to the above-quoted restriction is still able to add stuff to AWB?! That seems like gaming the system. I mean, the language is excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB, and that's totally defeated if someone subject to such a restriction is able to add built-in stock changes to AWB. – Levivich 15:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: It would seems that before we got here, pre-2019 Wikipedia bent over backwards to ensure sanctioned users were fully accommodated. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Remove AWB access? Seems like the path of least resistance forward. There's blatant gaming here, and if it's being managed through AWB, then this seems like a simple way to resolve it. Maybe some other wording about using tools to make (semi-)automated edits should be added. Just a thought. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Eh - quite apart from the thousands of pointless US location edits, I hadn't realised that RF had actually added that change to the built-ins. That's gaming the system. Agree - remove AWB. Enough is enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a reinstatement, as I pointed out. If you are prepared to put the work in to maintain the list, be my guest. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC).

• Support withdrawal of AWB, but it doesn’t go far enough, if that’s some sort of tacit permission by omission of mention of manual edits. I recall a well-known 2015 case involving rapid-fire edits, where in response to accusations of bot-assisted editing, the protagonist said this: I have not been using any automated processes or bots. I am simply a fast typist. I apologize again... [and] promise not to do so again. (full ANI discussion) The main issue in question in that case was very different than in this one; the one aspect where the two are similar is in the use of rapid-fire editing in pursuit of a questionable goal for which the user had already been warned or sanctioned before. In the earlier case, the user understood the issue, and apologized repeatedly. What’s striking to me in this case, is that I’m not seeing understanding or apology, but only hunkering down, pushback, and argumentation. If AWB is withdrawn, the same reasoning should apply to manual edits as well; perhaps limited to an "N edits per day" threshold, as was discussed in the earlier case. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I do apologise for defending myself. Clearly I should have hung myself from the nearest lamppost, after posting a grovelling apology.
• To set some context, I rewrote the demographics paragraphs in the Rambot articles over the course of several months in 2006. I was aware at the time that there were remaining infelicties of phrasing and vocabulary. It seemed unexceptional to resolve one of them.
• We now have a situation where the denizens of AN/I are unhappy about not the putative reason for Beeblebrox's posting, but half a dozen other things, ranging from making changes that are too small, or too l§arge, to changes no one should have the right to make, to the fact that I don't roll over and die. I am happy to engage on all these matters, though it sèems to me that they are best addressed in appropriate fora.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC).

Rich, this sort of comment is why I came here instead of talking to you first. I don't see this at all as being about Beeblebrox -vs- Rich. I remember fondly when we met in person several years ago,and you seem like a genuinely nice guy, but you have a long-term pattern of making highly questionable mass edits like this, and editing restrictions and arbcom cases have been necessary to curtail them in the past, so just opening a thread on your talk page seemed highly unlikely to bring about a successful resolution. And as I've said all along, it may not (at this point I suppose we can say probably is not) technically be in violation of the elaborately worded editing restriction, but I believe these edits violate the spirit of these restrictions, as well as others you've managed to have rescinded, in that the point of all of them was to get you to stop doing exactly this sort of thing. And I think Blak Kite's observation above is particularly relevant, in that you gave yourself permission for an exemption to your own restrictions. Very clever, but not very smart, and certainly not helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I was reviewing my talk page for March 2006, back when I was doing a lot on Wikipedia. At that point I was getting messages every day, some of them raising issues. They were pretty much all resolved in a very short timescale, either because I could explain why what I was doing was correct, or because I could quickly fix the issue.

We could have had a conversation about this which would have run, I imagine, something like this:

<Beeblebrox> Hey Rich, I think you are breaking your editing restriction here. It says ....

<Rich> Thank for letting me know, this is within the restriction because...

<Beeblebrox> Hmm. Well I'm still not happy because....

Then you would have said, I hope, what it is that you are unhappy about. And it's not clear from what you have written what that is. It really can't be all the things you have mentioned, it seems to me. Perhaps it is because your watch list got busy. Perhaps you have concerns about rapid editing. Perhaps you think changing "residing" to "living" is a really bad idea. I don't think it can really be a gestalt of all of these, and the, perhaps four or five, other things you have mentioned.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC).

But would you have replied or taken any notice, Rich Farmbrough? When I asked you on your talk-page about two edits that appeared to me cosmetic only (one of which I was quite wrong about, sorry!), you didn't even acknowledge. The other was this; what visible difference did that edit make to the displayed text of the article?

Anyway, support removal of AWB, and also a blanket restriction on making rapid-fire bot-like edits of any kind, by any means. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• AWB access is controlled via Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, right? Rich Farmbrough is not listed on that page. I don't understand why he's been editing Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects if he doesn't even have access to AWB. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Support removal of AWB access per above. I also agree with Justlettersandnumbers that Rich should be restricted from making rapid-fire bot-like edits of any kind (except when reverting vandalism). And seeing as Rich continued to defend his actions until there was support for the removal of AWB access, it wouldn't have mattered anyway if Beelebrox had brought this to Rich's talk page instead of here, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. That being said, Rich's comments have strengthened Beeblebrox's case —not worsened it— that starting this thread was absolutely necessary. I think Beeblebrox did the right thing by bringing this to the wider community instead of trying to deal with it himself, given what's been showing to be ongoing behavior. My suggestion to Rich is that he concentrates more on other areas of the project —like fighting vandalism, contributing content, fixing typos, etc— that way he can still make use of his time here without his past problems resurfacing. Rich can always have his AWB access reinstated if he's able to show that he's learned from the behavior that got it taken away to begin with—that is after he's focused on other areas of the project for so long.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

About the edits in Ashina tribe and Göktürks page by Hunan201p

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

---

First Klyashtorny says nothing about the "ethnic" origin of Ashina. It is so written that if a reader might read, would think Ashina are Iranians. Let us check the used sources:

• "The theme of the ‘wolf’ in two of the three Türk legends is shared with the Wu-sun, who preceded the Türk Empire by many centuries. Also shared with the Wu-sun is the theme of the mutilated child abandoned in the wilderness by the enemy. According to the Shih-chi, the Wu-sun ruler K’un-mo was cast out to die when still a baby, but was nourished by birds that brought him meat and by a wolf that suckled him. The story is also related in the Han shu and its close relationship with one of the Türk origin myths is obvious. There is, however, the significant difference that, whereas in the Wu-sun myth the wolf saves the ancestor of the tribe, it is not – as in the case of the Türks – the ancestor of the people. (The connections with Mongol myths, though undeniable, should not concern us here." and "Türk system of beliefs linking at least some sections of the Türk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wu-sun who – for all we know – may have been Iranians."(1)

He only says that there is a link between the belief system. source

• here, another source of his, saying that the Ashina word might be Iranian origins, saying nothing about Wu-sun people.
• this source is very very big, it can not be verified. (at least I can't)
• here it says: "He suggests that it may derive from the Tocharian title arsilanci, stemming, perhaps, from a marital tie of the Türk with the Tocharians of Qocho (Beckwith 1987, 206-208). Shervashidze reads A-shih-na as *Ahsen(a)-sad (< Soghdian: Axsina "blue" + sad, an Iranian title) (1989, 79-80). This Iranian linguistic connection was first put forward by Haussig and Bailey. More recently, Sergei Kliashtornyi has revisisted this theme and, building on the earlier work, suggests that A-shih-na is the transcription of Khotanese-Saka "Asseina/assena "blue" (cf. Soghian *ahsane) or perhaps Tocharian Asna "blue", The Khotanese-Saka form seems closest to "Ashina." This nicely dovetails with the usage "Kök Türk," Blue Türks, found in the Kül Tegin / Bilge Qaghan inscription.

Basicaly same sources over and over mentioning Klyashtorni.

• Carter V. Findley says: "The linguistically non-Turkic name, A-shih-na, probably comesfrom one of the Iranian languages of Central Asia and means “blue,” kök in Turkic, the color identified with the East, so that Kök Türk, another namefor the Türk Empire, meant the “Turks of the East.”"
• R. N. Frye says nothing about the name, even there is no mention of Ashina.

I can not verify the source of Rona Tas, page needed.

Conclusion: "Origin" term is misleading. Ashina does not exist in Turkic languages. This might explain the link between Göktürk which means Blue Turks and Ashina. Victor H. Mair says: "Türks, per se, had strong connections with -if not ultimate in origins in- Irano-Tocharian east Turkistan. They, or at least the Ashina, were migrants to southern Siberia - northern Mongolia, where we seem to find the major concentration of Turkic-speaking peoples. There are considerable number of Tocharian and Iranian loan words in Old Türkic - although a good number of these may have been acquire, especially in the case of Soghdian terms, during the Türk imperial period, when the Sogdhians were a subject people, ..." User: Hunan201p is faking edits and misleading people. (here, I changed it to etymology section, how it must be, he reverted my edit again. He also put the same text to Göktürks to give an impression that orjinal Türks were Iranian origin. It says "Several historians have pointed out that the origin of the Ashina is from the Indo-Aryan Wusun." which is a big lie. please see (1) above, that is the orginal text. "Türk system of beliefs linking at least some sections of the Türk ruling class to the Sogdians and, beyond them, to the Wu-sun who – for all we know – may have been Iranians." As you can see, he says Wu-sun people are Iranians.

Another issue: Please see Talk:Ashina tribe#Beshogur's opinions. His first argument was "It tells us nothing we didn't already know; the Ashina tribe spoke some form of "Turkic", which was the lingua franca of the Gokturk empire. It says nothing about "Old Turkic" and nothing about the ethnic language of the Ashina.", which is basicly an absurd argument since Old Turkic language is based on Göktürks' language. Also saying "The Orkhon inscriptions are written in an Indo-European script", although Orkhon inscriptions are the first form of written Turkic languages. here my edits which are pretty much reliable and says "The reference you used in the religious section is very vague and does not explicitly state when and how Tengriism became the religion of the Ashina triben or the Turks for that matter", although my reference clearly states that: "...some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri."

I do not know if this place is the right place but I need an administrator attentions. He threatens me every time with reporting. Beshogur (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've read the Shiji myself, years ago, and it's a fascinating document, but honestly my eyes glazed over after 1/4 of the wall of text above. What is the specific conduct issue here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

An etymological origin is put as "ethnic origin". Which are completely different things. Also saying Ashina tribe, which Qaghans of the Turkic khaganates belong, never spoke Old Turkic, and never were Tengrist according the named user. Beshogur (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a complex area, probably bedevilled by nationalism of authors. However I'm sure that you could both, with care and patience, collaborate to produce good content.

For example you quote "some scholars see this practice as amounting to a state religion, “Tengrism,” in which the ruling Ashina family gained legitimacy through its support from Tengri." The important part of this quote is some scholars - this means that it is probably unwise to add this to the infobox, it is better in the body of article. You could, potentially have an infobox entry such as

| religion = Disputed, see text.

This would allow you to discuss the matter in the depth it deserves.

The same applies to other matters, if you can say that there is a disagreement between usually reliable sources, then do that.

I hope you guys can get on without having to resort to AN/I, which I can assure you is not fun, and a huge time sink.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC).

I'm happy to watch that page if there's a content issue, and if there are any questions I have Sima Qian on hand. But if there's something requiring intervention now, I've lost it in the verbosity above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, it is not something disputed. How are people still in denial I do not understand. (talking about Bilge Qaghan), "The qaghan claimed that he was "heaven-like, heaven-conceiver" and possessed qut (heavenly good fortune). a sign of the heavenly mandate to rule." and "The Türks, like many of their subjects, were believers in Tengri. They also worshipped Umay, a goddess associated with fertility, and Yol Tengri, a god of the road (fate)." This is a small part about the "dispute", same user claims that Ashina tribe never spoke Old Turkic, now he will say that my source does not explicitly mention Ashina. "Members of the charistmatic Ashina clan had 'heaven-mandated' right to rule over large nomadical tribal groupings." I am also planning to put Buddhism as minority, since few khagans were Buddhists. Beshogur (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I haven't examined the particular dispute at length so I have to AGF and assume misinterpretation rather than bad faith. But I do want to say, I have had disagreements with both Hunan and Beshogur. My disagreements with Beshogur touched on extremely emotive matters involving national identities that matter to two of us (as people who know us know, we belong to two ethnic groups whose "homeland" states currently have shite relations, and we disagree on these matters), and the portrayal of currently ongoing conflicts. My disagreements with Beshogur have involved matters involving accusations of war crimes. The two of us never resorted to the level of vitriol employed by Hunan, either on myself or Beshogur. The weird thing is, my past activity is more in line with Hunan's general views. I first met him on the page Uighurs where he was trying to remove sources that he felt were PRIMARY, and he felt overstated the level of East Eurasian and understated the level of West Eurasian admixture in Uighurs; the opposite POV had been pushed by Chinese IPs for years and I and others had had to regularly clean it up.

On the current dispute too, my personal view is generally that the "original" Turks were likely to some degree mixed in origin. But what he is saying about what that should say for the page doesn't make sense. He doesn't want the page to say that the Ashina spoke Turkic, insisting they only used it as a lingua franca and it was not their ethnic language which is proved by Indo-European "influences" in the Orkhon inscriptions. Namely, the scripts-- i.e. The Orkhon inscriptions are written in an Indo-European script, casting serious doubt that Ashina were ethnically Turkic. Yes, because Bantus and Quechua and Indonesians are ethnically "Latin"? And, oops, the Sogdian script itself is descended from Semitic scripts, and Sogdians were obviously not Semitic... But even so, even if they originally spoke it as a "lingua franca", the Ashina still spoke Old Turkic, and they built an entity that spread that language. We don't need to give a darn what the original ethnic language of the Ashina was, because that is not what is important to history, but for some reason Hunan and Hunan alone insists on redirecting all discussion to that matter, and thus obfuscating the foundational role of the Ashina in the spread of Turkic entities. So his whole shtick is really, really bizarre here. But that's okay, we're allowed to have opinions others disagreed with. What's not okay is attacking people for disagreeing with you.

The root of the problem is not his opinions; it's his behavior. This consistently involves accusing his colleagues of "falsification" (example: [[105]]; in this case "falsification" means not having the supplementary tables of one source and reporting the same information as relayed in another source that directly cites it) and all sorts of other things, seeming to imply that every case of misbalance he perceives is the result of some sort of misinformation attempt, and in the case of Beshogur, making an entire talk page attack section titled "Beshogur's opinions". That is not collegial, professional behavior. --Calthinus (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your good comment. Beshogur (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur and Calthinus are putting words in to my mouth. In short, there is no legitimate dispute here. Beshogur attempted to remove longstanding content from the Ashina tribe page that was properly sourced, multiple times, after Wario Man and I attempted to show him that the references were legit. This has nothing to do with nationalism on my part (I'm a US citizen of Western European descent, not Asian or of any political affiliation) and everything to do with Beshogur's own bias and desire to cover up the consensus about the Ashina tribe. That can't happen and it's been pointed out by Wario-Man numerous times before that the Ashina tribe is being re-written by the editor (who is not Beshogur). The talk page at Ashina tribe has always been the place for Beshogur to contribute, not the noticeboard, which he has thrice now abused with frivolous and rambling diaries, which hardly any uninvolved administrators could expect to digest in a matter of days. Hunan201p (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a binding to "someone is going to rewrite, so you can not edit"? Beside that, read my whole text, putting it as "origin" is misleading. I checked all sources except two, which one was not readable, very very long Russian texts, other had no page number. All sources say the word Ashina has Saka/Sogdian origin and one source says that origin myths of Ashina and Wusun are similar. Nothing more. Please control them. Also most of them are citing Klyashtorni, which I have put his orginal sentence above, read it. Beshogur (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment, @Wario-Man: and @Kansas Bear:, please your thoughts? Beshogur (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

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

2600:1702:3310:6C30:4B2:A034:E910:FEC5's edits

The user (2600:1702:3310:6C30:4B2:A034:E910:FEC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been changing dates on various articles without either using edit summaries or using the talk pages of the article(s) in question. Could someone take a look at their edits and possibly take action as needed. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Range blocked and edits reverted. You can report vandals like this to WP:AIV next time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

User:ThosLop

Another editor recently started a thread here about this problematic editor. That thread was archived without action to here. The crux of the issue is that the editor is adding fire department/district websites to the external links section of various articles. Examples; [106],[107]. More than a hundred of these edits have been reverted per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#External_links, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:LINKFARM. The editor has been warned about these edits starting in August of last year (see User_talk:ThosLop#August_2019). Despite multiple attempts at contact by several different editors on this editor's talk page, despite several warnings regarding the issue, despite the prior WP:AN/I thread, despite a final warning to his talk page here, this editor is continuing as before; [108]. To date, the editor has made 381 edits; all to mainspace. The editor has never once made a talk page edit. The editor is either unwilling to discuss the issue, or is completely oblivious to the hundreds of revert messages they have received and the many talk page notices that have appeared on their talk page. Regardless of why they are acting in this manner, their edits are disruptive and they are refusing to discuss the issue in any respect. I am asking for them to be blocked to prevent the continued disruption. The editor has been notified of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've left a message on ThosLop's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish

There's a large disagreement going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography regarding the future of WP:JOBTITLES in which there's a lot of strong but respectful disagreement going on between a bunch of editors. My sole history with this topic is posting on the talk page a few days ago that I was unhappy with the status quo and interested in moving to change that but probably not immediately (for one, I'm currently working on the six million articles push before Wikipedia's anniversary in a few days) following a WP:RM discussion in my editing area of interest.

Several supporters of the status quo have engaged respectfully in that discussion, but SMcCandlish has been extremely aggressive and has repeatedly threatened that I'll be banned if I keep talking about having the section changed. I've noticed that he's previously been put under an interaction ban with another user back in May last year for similar behaviour on similar topics.

Examples of banning threats (amidst many other examples of unnecessarily aggressive talk page conduct):

• "To use an actual quotation, The Drover's Wife's "A fire always starts with a spark ..." screed is a clear demonstration that this is a WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:BATTLEGROUND matter for this person, who seems unaware that 'become an activist against guidelines I don't like' behavior routinely leads to topic bans"
• (in response to suggesting that people who wanted to avoid aggressive talk page attacks could contact me directly) And now canvassing to conspire offsite for long-term battlegrounding against a guideline you don't like? I'm sure we'll see that diff come up again later.
• Oh, please. I'm trying to prevent you eventually ending up topic-banned, by pointing out what you're doing that's likely to lead there eventually

My entire contribution to this topic, which I engaged with for the first time ever on 29 December, is visible on the current version of the above talk page and nothing I've done has possibly warranted these continued threats and aggression. Requests to stop have just been treated with more of the same. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Your accusation and canvassing invitation at this edit did strike me as extreme, and I'm not surprised that you got a strong reaction. I'd consider it more of a warning than a threat. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

By that point, SMC had already made several, shall we say, highly-opinionated remarks in that thread. And it's hard to believe the sincerity of 'I'm trying to prevent you from getting topic banned' when it is preceded by 'I'm sure we'll see that diff again.' The level of hostility that SMC has for the OP would suggest that there is more history between these two than the OP let on. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I don't think it suggests there is any history. The main problem here is that SMcCandlish often creates a highly toxic environment in MOS-related discussions with walls of text, accusations, strawmen etc. Having occasionally seen his antics over many years when I occasionally involved myself in an MOS-related question, I'm amazed that he's managed to avoid being topic banned from the area. Number 57 16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Number 57 has a partisan viewpoint in the discussion at issue and is not a neutral ANI respondent: "Personally I think MOS:JOBTITLES should be removed from the MOS ... per Coffeandcrumbs and TDW." [109]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, that's just ridiculous. My comments here are nothing to do with the fact that I have !voted differently to you there and everything to do with your behaviour over many years. I would not make these comments about any of the other editors who having opposing views to me there – and indeed could not, as I have not seen any of them behave like you. Number 57 00:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not at all ridiculous that point out that you're topically involved, and siding by name with one of the parties in the underlying content dispute (though mis-citing that editor's position; TDW did not propose removing the entire guideline section, and has even said below that they do not support such a notion). It's not an accusation of anything, it's just an observation that you're on one side of this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If I've ever encountered him before on Wikipedia, I don't have any memory of it: I rarely edit outside of Australian topics so I'm not sure where we would have crossed paths. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• TDW is fomenting WP:DRAMA with hyperbolic ranting, blatantly canvassing for people to collude in e-mail to campaign against guideline line-items TDW doesn't like (a diff I predicted might be used as evidence against TDW, and so it has come to pass), casting aspersions that basically amount to a conspiracy theory about MoS and its editorial shepherds, denying reality (e.g. suggesting that this line-item or that has no consensus basis, when other editors have dug up an entire talk page section of MoS history for TDW, including multiple RfCs), urging that our guidelines be ignored without good reason (going back further than Dec. 29), and so on. I've warned the editor multiple times that taking this "give me my way on my stylistic pet peeves or I'll never cease fighting" WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude (which is a matter of interaction behavior, not about the content under dispute) is the sort of thing people eventually get T-banned for. My effort to curb this tendency and get more collegial behavior – a shift I fervently hoped to see happen in lieu of it continuing into topic-ban territory – has simply resulted in me being accused of engaging in "personal attacks" and making "threats". That's especially hypocritical; if TDW considers even a take-a-hint-and-calm-down allusion to ANI to be "threatening", and "inappropriate" behavior for an established editor, and various other "I'm a victim!" things TDW has been saying, then what is TDW doing here trying to abuse ANI to get rid of an opponent in a content dispute (which is going nowhere near where TDW wants it to go)? Let's nip this in the bud right now. Just the fact that TDW has been able to generate this much negativity in such a short time is a really bad sign. Our guidelines do not exist to serve as targets for Quixotic windmill tilting, much less for organizing a cavalry of meatpuppets to do the tilting. Make your case, let people have their say without turning it into a verbal combat, and accept the result.

  PS: TDW is blatantly falsifying the facts. I obviously never said anything about anyone being T-banned for "talking about having the section changed". No one in their right mind would suggest such a thing. Anyway, I can diff all this stuff this later, if anyone wants to keep this thread open and examine the behavior, but I'm about out of time for WP today. PPS: TDW seems to be kind of "thrashing". E.g., see this pointless revert. I merged the diff evidence thread for an ongoing thread above it into that above thread as a subsection, a completely normal and helpful refactor (inspired by the fact that people in that main thread kept asking for those diffs when they were already there on the page). TDW reverted with "Please don't move other people's comments without asking", which doesn't describe the refactor (I didn't touch anyone's comments in any way at all). And none of the material was TDW's, anyway. The editor is just lashing out in a petty manner and trying to pick a fight. I almost came to ANI when TDW posted the canvassing invitation, but decided to just warn and see if things got better. Now, out of fear of having their behavior examined at ANI, TDW is ensuring that exact outcome. It's rather strange.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  It's interesting how users were complaining about the inconsistency in capitalization of terms like 'President' (of the United States, not some garden club) and your first comment in the thread alluded to a really ridiculous subtext to this, that runs something like 'This marginally notable person has a job title of "Social Media Evangelist", and the grand total of three sources that mention this person, all of them newspapers that capitalize every job title at all occurrences... That's quite a leap. Also, while you and TDW are probably both a bit guilty of misrepresenting one another's words, it is true that you brought up topic bans at the end of your very first post in the thread. And since you were talking to a veteran editor who is presumably familiar with how we do sanctions around here, that really wasn't necessary. Given that you were two non-admins engaged in a sharp disagreement, it was unwise for one of you to warn the other. That's just a recipe for further escalation, which is exactly what happened. Lepricavark (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nah. Anyone who understands process can let another know how it usually goes and why. It's actually entirely customary to try to discuss a behavior problem with the problem editor, and to avoid a noticeboarding, including by letting the other know that step may eventually be taken. Notably, I didn't receive that courtesy from TDW, though TDW essentially engaged in the same so-called threat, by incorrectly accusing me of being subject to an ongoing AE sanction; there is no such sanction, but the obvious intent of the gesture was to imply that TDW would use this against me if I did not yield to the editor's wishes. Then TDW ran to ANI to file a completely bogus report anyway. Further hypocrisy, twice over. This reeks of the need for a WP:BOOMERANG sanction. Anyway, I did not feel "threatened" or otherwise offended, it was just an incorrect claim by TDW, and an attempt to silence an opposing voice (contrast my criticisms which were simply an attempt to get that voice to be civil and constructive). If I had in fact been subject to a sanction that I might be breaching, then it actually would have been sensible for TDW to have raised it to me and suggest that I might be headed for trouble. That is to say, Lepricavark is basically just making up an "only admins can warn anyone about anything" idea, out of nowhere.

  As for the content dispute, WT:MOSBIO has seen multiple low-volume but very similar complaints about MOS:JOBTITLES, all of them resolving to a desire to capitalize occupational, officeholder, honorary, and other titles at all or most occurrences. The commercial job title example I made up serves to illustrate the point that they're all the same excessive-capitalization preference, but without me tying it to anyone in particular's previous proposal in this regard.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  No, I merely think it's bad form for one experienced user to talk to another experienced user as if the latter is an uninformed newbie, especially if the two editors are engaged in a strong disagreement. How did you manage to arrive at 'only admins can warn anyone about anything' from 'two veterans non-admins engaged in a dispute should probably not warn one another'? Do you always make such egregious leaps of illogic, or does it just seem like a pattern because you have done it at least twice in this thread? In the future, perhaps you should not attempt to tell me what my words mean unless you intend to do a better job of being accurate. Also, the commercial job title illustration that you used was a blatant strawman and your attempt to justify it is unpersuasive. Lepricavark (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  See my diffs of TDW's behavior and arguments below. The editor frequently makes statements that indicate a poor understanding of processes, consensus formation, and policy-and-guideline matters. Of particular relevance is that TDW seems to have trouble understanding the difference between things like expired community I-bans and ongoing WP:AC/DS sanctions, how and why to do an ANI, the difference between objections to TDW's behavior toward other editors and in regard to how to pursue changes to guideline wording, versus objections to the content of TDW's change proposals. TDW is not an uninformed newbie, but clearly has understanding gaps (especially about things like sanctions), even after they've repeatedly been explained. There's no way to rectify that without addressing it directly, which is what I did. I disagree with your idea that non-admins shouldn't warn each other. Is there a policy or guideline on this you'd like to cite? Do you think admins who are in a dispute should warn each other? It's unclear what the logic is, honestly. Anyway, you're right that the commercial job title example wasn't very pertinent (if the discussion in question is taken as sharply delimited along public-office lines, and somehow completely unrelated to previous MOS:JOBTITLES threads). But it was an aside, and was not central to any argument I made in that post or elsewhere. I'm happy to retract it as questionably relevant. However, it's more interesting to swap in a local office-holder title, for example, which produces the same argument but is more tightly on-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm just baffled at where this aggression is coming from, and most of this is attacks for things I've never argued. I'd like the guideline changed. I'd like to hear from other people who like the guideline changed but might be put off engaging on that particular talk page by aggressive behaviour like SMcCandlish's. I've never said anything that could be remotely interpreted as "give me my way on my stylistic pet peeves or I'll never cease fighting": I've just said that I'd like it changed, and suggested that, at some point in the future, I might start an RfC about it. I had no idea this was even an issue until the WP:RM popped up just before Christmas, and I've not nearly done the research I'd want to do before I put that out. One of my main hopes was to initiate some discussion and see where things stood, and it's generated helpful responses: for example, another user went through this morning and documented the whole process history of the creation of WP:JOBTITLES, which illustrated that at each stage it's been expanded with very low participation, which supports the prospect that a new RfC seeking much wider engagement might be able to provide helpful guidance as to where the broader Wikipedia community stands on the issue.

The WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is SMcCandlish's and SMcCandlish's own - numerous people have spoken up in that discussion taking the same point of view of him and done it perfectly respectfully without any of the kind of aggression that has defined his behaviour. It's not a matter of a content dispute - it's a matter of knocking off the threats and aggression and SMcCandlish behaving like every other person who agrees with him on the talk page. Nor am I "trying to get rid of" an opponent - an agreement from SMcCandlish that he'll tone it down and look to say, his friend Eyer, for an example of how to behave towards people he disagrees with would do just fine.

The reply above illustrates some of these issues - the mere fact of my discussing the possibility of changing the guideline is described as "quixotic windmill tilting" and the possibility of engaging more people in an environment where decisions affecting between hundreds and hundreds of thousands of articles are repeatedly being made by between three and five people is described as "organizing a cavalry of meatpuppets to do the tilting". Looking for people who might be interested in collaborating on drafting up an RfC proposal (because I certainly don't have all the answers for what it should look like beyond thinking that the current language is not working) is not "canvassing", at least in any negative way. (I have zero interest in getting into individual-article-wars over this - an MOS warrior I am absolutely not.) If we do a wider community RfC and it goes a different way than I'd hoped, then that's totally fine, but five people is not a basis on which one might be convinced that the topic is resolved and should be dropped for all time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the way SMcCandlish approach, I have to agree with them and Dicklyon that it was a mistake to advocate discussing this privately. Collaboration on policies and guidelines, as with article content, should generally take place on-wiki. If an editor is causing problems with collaboration then ask from them to be blocked or topic-banned if it rises to that level, or ignore them if it doesn't. Even if you just plan to take the results of your collaboration to an RfC for feedback from the wider community and heck even if everyone involved declares their involvement, or doesn't take part in the RfC, there's still a strong risk it leaves everyone unhappy about the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should've been more clear with that comment: I didn't mean off-wiki so much as "not on this talk page" (i.e. my talk page, etc.). There's certainly no reason RfC planning needs to take place off-wiki. As for the rest, that's why I've raised it here: SMcCandlish's behaviour is a huge problem for collaboration of any form in a direction he doesn't agree with taking place on the actual MOS pages themselves (which is why it came up in the first place), and a collective response from other users to cool it with the aggression would go a long way towards helping along a broad consensus outcome (whatever that may be). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit better. But still taking things which should be discussed on a page talk page to someone's user page is generally a bad idea. Especially if it's done with the intention of excluding some interested party. I'm not saying it should never be done, sometimes it can be helpful for editors to work on their own thing for a time perhaps with a few others. But that's mostly the case where several editors want to do their own thing separately and then come together and try and stitch together a result. As I said, if SMcCandlish is causing problems, the best is either to get them sanctioned to end it if it rises to the level or just ignore them when you feel what they are saying it not useful to building a consensus. I understand it can be frustrating and difficult, but for better or worse collaboration here means you sometimes have to work with people who's approach you find unhelpful and trying to exclude participants without the community agreeing generally results in poor outcomes and even worse ill-feeling. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Having read through the entire original discussion, all I see is a robust and lengthy clarification by SMcCandish, which I found quite thoughtful and interesting. I saw no direct or implied threats by them towards anyone, especially The Drovers Wife. TDW was quite reasonable in what they said, but made the mistake of concluding that threats had been made by SMcC against them personally where none was made or intended, and I was also surprised by TDWs apparently unintended broad invitation to discuss matters with them off wiki. Its easy for frustration to come across as far more than that, but I see no case to answer here, except to say to TDW that being hasty to come to ANI is never helpful and was not appropriate here. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't say I've ever come across discussions this "robust" on Wikipedia in years: I've had plenty of disagreements, but I can't ever recall someone responding in such an aggressive tone in the very first instance. Is this par for the course on MOS topics? It certainly isn't anywhere I've edited. I'm also not sure how I'm supposed to take, in response to me making a first post on the talk page raising issues with a section of the MOS, a strong suggestion that continuing might lead to a topic ban - even in the most charitable interpretation, that relied on wild and unjustified assumptions about what I was there to do that had no basis in my post. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • More WP:IDHT and "I'm just baffled" and victim-posturing theatre. How many times does TDW need it explained to them that the content matter is immaterial? When TDW implies that those who disagree with their views are "grammatically" wrong and conspiratorial (while TDW is the one canvassing to collude), that is worthy of warnings that it's a bad idea. Has nothing to do with "what [TDW] was there to do". It's not about TDW's views, but TDW's behavior, which is the behavior that was actually aggressive. This is covered in more detail below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
      • You're so caught up in your anger at having to discuss the subject you haven't even picked up what my views are: it is a matter of fact to say WP:JOBTITLES is being applied in ways that are basically ungrammatical, as can be seen by source uses demonstrating that some applications on a much-written-about topics are completely novel and not done outside of Wikipedia. I am not somehow suggesting that all applications of WP:JOBTITLES are ungrammatical. And now, you're going to accuse me of "backpedalling", because you've again assumed things that were way off and when I've explained my actual positition you're going to decide it's just changed from the one you'd imagined I'd had. The consistent allegations of "conspiracy" for planning an RfC that would change the wording from the status quo are getting old at this point. Your continued responses on that talk page were many, many times more aggressive than anyone else on your side, and yet for some reason you keep projecting these things onto me: none of your diffs actually show anything beyond plain old disagreement with the status quo, though I should obviously in hindsight, given your first response, have dropped any colloquialism and started writing in lawyer-prose to avoid intentionally being taken out of context.The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

        You are not a mind reader, and should stop projecting. I'm not angry at all, actually. I find all this a bit tiresome, but it is neither angering nor entertaining. I can discuss style matters all day, though; they don't bother me. Next, that's not what grammatical means, as has been explained to you repeatedly (IDHT again). I've conclusively demonstrated you're backpedalling, below. And you're not reading what's written; I didn't say your canvassing was a conspiracy (though it is collusive); I said you keep implying those who disagree with you are conspiring, and I've diffed the evidence of this. Ultimately this comes back down to my original summary of the issue: All this drama was caused because someone tried to misapply the guideline to an inappropriate case at RM; that proposition went nowhere, yet you flew off the handle anyway. MoS already has a safety valve in it: if the sources more or less uniformly apply a stylization to a particular topic that is at odds with what MoS would default to, we follow the sources. All this invective against the guideline, all this vitriol toward a nebulous set of "enemies" (2, 5, 3, you keep picking different numbers of them) you bend over backwards to imply are stupid without quite saying it, all the canvassing (at least twice), all the histrionics of claiming to be "aggressively" "attacked" when your behavior is criticized – it's all pointless, unnecessary drama. If people behaved like this every time someone tried to misapply a policy or guideline at RM, then WP could consist of nothing but yelling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

        Repeatedly explaining that there is a huge gulf between the wild assumptions of bad faith you've made on my part from my very first post expressing discontent with the current wording of the guideline and what I've actually been doing is not "backpedalling", regardless of whether you've convinced yourself just as "conclusively" as you did in misreading my position in the first place when you went off at the mere notion of change. It isn't "invective against the guideline" to suggest that it's unclear in some situations and should be amended to provide clear guidance and miniimise the situations where people have to apply the "safety valve" you referred to. Threatening that people will be topic banned because of what you've frenetically imagined they might do in the future based on the mere fact they've disagreed with the current wording of the guideline is not "criticising behaviour", it's just being randomly threatening, and dismissing any request that you tone it down as "histronics" once again illustrates why the suggestion that I could have approached you on your talk page would have been unhelpful. And you're the only one who keeps bringing up "enemies" as a WP:BATTLEGROUND response to my attempting to discuss issues of process and raise the notion that more involvement in these kinds of wide-ranging discussions is a good thing (more feedback totally changed the outcome of the ongoing RfC, even wider feedback would provide more useful guidance whatever the ultimate outcome). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

        This is getting too circular. The diffs below speak for themselves, as does your behavior in the bullet-points thread below it where you continue to escalate with false accusations of being attacked, and various other handwaving. If we filter what you've written above to remove the dodging and excuse-making and victim-posing, and just focus on your declared present intent, that sounds like progress and I'm satisfied with it. However, "raise the notion that more involvement in these kinds of wide-ranging discussions is a good thing" isn't something you've done; it's part of the community norm, and no one on any side of this has suggested anything contrary to it. So no, it's not a cloak of invisibility you can put on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A detailed diff-xamination of the behavior of User:The Drover's Wife

There are no "attacks" (not by me, or by anyone else toward TDW, anyway). Just review the discussion (both WT:MOSBIO#RfC: First mention in the first sentence... (MOS:JOBTITLES), and WT:MOSBIO#WP:JOBTITLES. What you should notice pretty quickly is "Yes per SMcCandlish reasoning", "Yes. Per SMcCandlish", "SMcCandlish is doing such an obvious job of talking sense here that I feel no need to add anything", and so on. No one but TDW has anything to say about my alleged tone. Meanwhile, TDW is being farcically theatrical about about me, about the guideline, and (most importantly for ANI) anyone who disagrees, tarring them as conspiratorial (wait, who was it who was canvassing for an off-site group to pursue forcing MoS into "the right version"?) and ignorant of English grammar, among other things. Let's have a quick look:

In the MOS:JOBTITLES RfC opened in November 2019

"not supported by reliable sources either in practical usage (in any sense) or in authoritative style guide usage" [110] (Just not true, as has been shown in WP:RM after RM in specific cases, while previous MoS discussions on the generalities have cited said style guides in volume and detail. As noted below, a single case of one person not understanding the guideline who proposed a bad move which didn't succeed seems to be what set TDW off, on a tiresome slow-motion tirade against the guidelines and against editors who follow it or had anything to do with it.) From same post: "This is has gotten to the point where you've got two or three Wikipedians attempting to make Wikipedia use an entirely interpretation [sic] of English grammar as distinct from the entire rest of the language" (That's the same kind of "evidence I don't like doesn't exist" WP:IDHT act, combined with a WP:CABAL conspiracy theory; MoS is probably the most-watchlisted guideline on the system, and has had thousands of editors). From same post: "These changes are ungrammatical", and "interpretation of English grammar", earlier. (This has nothing to do with grammar at all, but with style conventions which vary by publisher. Mislabeling style matters as "grammar" issues (i.e., not choices to make but rules to obey or you'll be considered wrong and stupid) is the hallmark of uninformed language prescriptivism and the argument to ridicule fallacy. By contrast, "this are some example grammars error of". If you violate a language's grammar, you really are making an error. If you don't apply entirely optional capitalization the way TDW prefers, that's not an error, it's simply a decision.) From same post: "slipped in because a very small number of editors (I count three on this talk page) have changed a guideline on their own whim with outcomes that are increasingly ludicrous" (so, multiple concluded RfCs don't exist, it's really a three-person Cabal of Doom. And WP consensus is "increasingly ludicrous"; I guess all other editors singly and together are just idiots compared to TDW's godlike wisdom. NB: TDW didn't bother to actually look much into the history of the editing of that section and the discussions behind it (and after it); Coolcaesar did much later (here; DPW didn't see it until 6 January [111]): "On 10 September 2017, User:Great scott initiated a RfC on the capitalization issue .... User:SMcCandlish initiated a second RfC on 21 September 2017". Who opened the RfCs is irrelevant; they ran their course. As I've said twice there, anyone's free to open up yet another RfC, but the outcome is rather predictable. If reliable sources do not with near consistency capitalize something, then WP will not either. NB: There's a third RfC, opened 9 November 2019, still at the top of WT:MOSBIO page [112]. It was unanimously in one direction (though just today, almost a month late, TDW belatedly added opposition and someone else did shortly thereafter, when directly canvassed by TDW to do so [113]). From same post: "the Cambridge Australian English style guide says it should be capitalised" (Now we know where this is coming from. It's the same nationalistic "give me my accustomed style preferences, or else" posturing that led to the last topic ban from MoS. NB: The Cambridge style guide for Australia is just their British one with some Australian vocabulary thrown in. It's a learners' work, and not comparable to New Hart's Rules (a.k.a. Oxford Style Manual), one of the style guides on which MoS is actually based. But whatever. For every question in English usage, various style guides conflict with each other. It's why we look at so many of them in building MoS and refining it over time. The problem here is in deciding that this one is right, rather that just a data point. This exact "my source, or else" behavior – a form of WP:OR – was also implicated in the same previous MoS T-ban.) From same post: "What Wikipedia says is defined by definition by what is written [sic] in reliable sources and not the passionate if completely unique interpretation of English grammar of Wikipedia users Eyer and Coffeeandcrumbs." (The conspiracy theorizing and ad hominem slander just gets weirder: neither of those editors had anything to do with that guideline wording, and as usual the factual claims are simply fake. How Wikipedia styles what it writes is determined by consensus at MoS, among all editors who care to participate. WP does not write articles on, say, chemistry in the style of a chemistry journal and video game coverage in the style of a gamer magazine; it uses the same style throughout the encyclopedia. Our consensus on that style is based on mainstream, academic-leaning, high-reputation style guides, and our analyses of aggregate RS usage of English, via Google Ngrams, etc.) "Perhaps it might be time for an RfC to whack WP:JOBTITLES on the head once and for all if this keeps up: the take of this handful of users is so grammatically unusual that I highly doubt it'd survive full-blown scrutiny extending beyond the usual suspects on this page." [114] (Pure WP:BATTLEGROUNDing, conspiracy theorizing, and falsifying facts to cast aspersions at TDW's "enemies". And more nonconstructive "I wish there was an RfC so I could WP:WIN" posturing. So, just open a fourth RfC and get it over with. I'm confident in the outcome. Why isn't TDW, without first trying to eliminate his chief opposition with whom so many other editors vocally agree?) These are "discussions that impact hundreds if not thousands of articles." [115] ... "As a matter of process, considering this RfC proposes specific changes to specific articles, it would generally be Wikipedia practice to notify users on those particular talk pages that it is proposed to change them." [116] (Pure balderdash, and WP:GAMING. We would never in a million years notify "hundreds if not thousands" of article talk pages about some RfC. WP:FRS exists for a reason. So do WP:CENT and WP:VPPOL if people feel a particular issue rises to that level.)

All of that is from this thread Since that RfC didn't produce an answer TDW likes (and TDW seems to have missed it), the editor opened up another thread here. It isn't an RfC (and couldn't be one, per WP:RFC, because it's not even close to neutrally worded but is an advocacy piece):

In the ongoing, broader MOS:JOBTITLES thread

"applied in ways that are ungrammatical and contradict all usage in reliable sources" [117] (The same two falsehoods as usual.) From same post: "a couple of editors changing proper noun usages as if they were common nouns with religious fervour" (Thats it, denigrate other editors with argument to emotion and straw man fallacies.) From same post: "we've got editors claiming that Wikipedia should essentially rewrite the rules of English grammar" (A blatant fabrication, for the same ad hominem purpose.) From same post: As if we couldn't already tell this was just TDW's personal pet peeve, the editor concludes that the output of JOBTITLES "generally looks ridiculous". (Never mind all the other style guides, and modern, mainstream publications that do not capitalize public office and commercial job titles. They'r'e all just stupid and wrong!) Decides to double-down on this opinion-mongering and denigration of those who don't agree: "replacing fine prose with worse prose in the process" [118] (Everyone's just a terrible writer unless they write TDW's way.) Makes one of those comments worse: "essentially rewrite the rules of English grammar and decapitalise proper nouns" [119] (Adds in the linguistically confused claim that because some people capitalize office titles that they are "proper nouns". More on that below.) "every discussion on this page featuring this stuff seems to feature the same five or so people with strong opinions that are never grounded in any actual sources of any kind" [120] (More shamelessly false aspersions. This guideline is tested at least weekly, sometimes several times per day, at WP:RM and almost always depends on a source usage analysis.) In same post: "I'm not sure this ever had consensus in the first place." (It's thrice-RfCed, but it's not a consensus because TDW doesn't like it.) "The concept of office titles as proper nouns is completely lost on these people" [121] (Yet another "insult other editors to hide my argument being empty" ad hominem. There is no consensus in any sense that job and official titles are "proper nouns"; the sources don't say that, and editors in the aggregate don't agree with that because, of course, the sources don't say that. Reliable sources on English usage mostly say to capitalize these things when they are directly attached to a name. Some also suggest doing it when discussing the title/office itself as the subject, an idea that MoS adopted, mostly to forestall "give me capitals or else!" lobbying, apparently to no avail.) That same post [122] rails on and on about someone TDW is sure misinterpreted the guideline and someone else who didn't notice a prior RM. TDW is angry, at individuals, and is misdirecting it at a guideline and at people who understand and apply the guideline, and at people who don't take the TDW view on the question, and who try to warn TDW that venting angrily at everyone and accusing them of being stupid and a conspiracy isn't going to end well. "the whims of a small handful of Wikipedians shouldn't override actual reliable sources on correct grammar" (Same stuff: denigrate other editors, assert falsely that they have the sources wrong when we all know otherwise, and falsely claim it's a grammar matter, i.e. a right or wrong matter.) In the same post, TDW again tries to rely on Australian publications and is pushing an explicitly nationalistic angle. But WP:ENGVAR does not apply to things like when to capitalized office titles; Australian usage is as mixed as British and American and Canadian. ENGVAR applies to firmly fixed matters of national-level dialectal differences, like the colour/color split.) "There are a whole bunch of people frustrated about this who haven't seriously challenged it because of the hassle of going up against the hardcore RfC crowd" [123] (Except there seem to be maybe five such people, all of them much calmer about it than TDW. I have no idea what nefarious conspiracy "the hardcore RfC crowd" might be, but TDW seems unclear on how consensus is formed and how RfCs work. I've never heard of anyone being afraid to participate in them.) From same post: "A fire always starts with a spark, and traction only comes from people discussing the issue. This is the first step, not the only one." (This amounts to a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND declaration. At first I wasn't entirely sure that's what it was, but TDW's call to come join him in an offsite mailing list to strategize about how to overturn MOS:JOBTITLES makes it very, very clear. TWD is an activist against WP guidelines the editor dislikes. This is a WP:NOTHERE activity, albeit in a confined space. While TWD is clearly "HERE" when it comes to creating article content, this person is obviously not competent in one very particular way and needs to exit MoS-related pages or be removed from them with a sanction. This same sort of rally-to-my-righteous-cause attitude was much of why we T-banned the last editor I recall being T-banned from MoS. The purpose of talk page discussions is not wikilobbyists getting "traction", activists lighting a "fire", generals leading an army though many "steps" on a march to victory; it's collegially coming to a consensus through compromise and reason, for the betterment of the encyclopedia for our readers, not for the satisfaction of one person's pet peeves.) "It patently lacks consensus as a starting point" [124] (TDW is convinced that any guideline the editor doesn't like "lacks consensus" if it wasn't established by an enormous RfC at VPPOL. But we all know 99% of our WP:P&G pages did not originate that way. This material was established by RfCs, and people follow it more and more, and it's upheld every other day in another RM, but that's just not good enough. If TDW can canvass a few people to show up, then obviously that means it's time for a war to get what TDW wants. In at least seven places in this couple of threads, TDW dwells and dwells on a supposedly too-low number of editors at any prior RfCs, yet in this post crows that recent arrivals – namely people whose RM arguments did notn prevail, a grand total of three or so TDW-agreeing people – means the guideline is wrong. Well, no.) In the same post, TDW claims that people editing in compliance with the guideline is the "disruption and destabilisation of articles being edited based on the personal opinions of individual editors" (As usual, TDW is going after editors not commenting on content. And following a guideline is not "based on ... personal opinions". As Mandruss put it: "[Editors] are merely implementing a guideline that has existed unchanged for 18 months. If that's 'disruption and destabilisation of articles', I'd like to know what guidelines are for. ... It makes no sense that a dozen or so editors should be able to block implementation of a guideline because they disagree with it." And it's not even that many.) Now TDW starts getting nasty. "Suggesting that users who disagree with you are going to get banned is comical behaviour and you know better." [125] (Of course, I did no such thing. What I actually said was that TDW "seems unaware that 'become an activist against guidelines I don't like' behavior routinely leads to topic bans. (Fortunately, most editors who arrive at MoS, AT, or other WP:P&G pages with this attitude are disabused of it before it gets to that level.)" And that's true, both as to typical long-term process outcomes, and the usual efficacy of drawing attention to those outcomes.) From the same post: "This is how a tiny handful of users who frequent MOS pages are used to acting:" (conspiracy theory again) "try to shut down discussion" (no one did that) "ludicrously aggressive personal attacks" (there were none, at all), "intimidate people into thinking moving to change the thing is too hard or pre-emptively moving an RfC too early." (no one did either of those things, though I think the second was meant to say "closing", and no one did that either). And you've just got the wrong mark if you think that's going to work here." (Pure battlegrounding.)

And there's more:

In another RfC on the same page, and some later posts also at that page

In another, unrelated RfC at the same page, about whether to use plain English "Justice Mary Gaudron" or the law-journal obscurantism "Gaudron J" (a no-brainer), TDW's take (10 December): "it's an (extremely common) convention for how to refer to a judge in writing. We write about topics based on what the sources use, not on the opinions of some random guy on the internet." (Another mass-besmirching of anyone who worked on MoS or who writes in compliance with it, supposing that MoS and we get ideas not from style guides and other sources but from Web forums. And it's yet another falsehood and another IDHT: TDW posted this long after other editors in the same short discussion had pointed out that this style is not general, common usage, but only used in law citations. And it's more activism against the guidelines and how they work; WP certainly does not write articles about legal topics in the way that legal sources like law journals would; that's the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, and would be against MOS:JARGON, WP:TECHNICAL, WP:NOT#JOURNAL.) The same thing came up again here, and TDW posted (19 December) a shorter version of the same "do it the lawyer way" idea, despite that getting no support before. (IDHT again; TDW was alone in an RfC otherwise unanimously against the idea, a 14 to 1 WP:SNOWBALL. This is someone who is not trying to build consensus and go along with it, but who is importing a "write my way, dammit" attitude from offsite and trying to apply it here, meanwhile accusing other editors of conspiracies to force others to write their way; it's pure projection. This is a WP:CIR problem and why I think a T-ban will eventually be necessary if the behavior doesn't change.) Given that I was calmly critical of TDW's !votes in both of these discussions (in nearly the same words, given that they're basically duplicate threads: [126], [127]), and posted those demurrers on 27 December, the same day that TDW suddenly got involved in MOS:JOBTITLES stuff, and increasingly combative about it, I think this is too "coincidental" to ignore. It looks like TDW doesn't like being contradicted or criticized (that's an "attack", you see), so has gone on the warpath, seeking revenge. I'm not sure what else would explain going to ANI because you're mad at someone for suggesting that ANI might be needed, and other strange antics. More pointless battlegrounding: After I observed that the RfC at the top of WT:MOSBIO was unanimous, TDW added a contrary !vote a month late and canvassed another, as noted above. The "rationale" for this seems to just have been to post a "stick it to you" message at me [128], since obviously it will not have an effect on an old RfC. The pseudo-!vote states "Many of these positions are never decapitalised in any form of usage, so it'd just be an attempt to use Wikipedia to push a position." So, not only reiteration of the same bogus claim, but a diffuse accusation that you're PoV-pusher if you don't do things TDW's way, if you follow the guideline when TDW doesn't like it. This is the same tiresome incivility by skirting the edge of the exact letter of WP:CIVIL, being snide toward all and sundry by waving a hand in a general direction than pointing a finger at an individual. Needs to stop. Returns to trying to rely on his preferred Australian pedagogical style guide [129], in the same post as going off on The Chicago Manual of Style, being clearly under the impression that MoS just does what it does (nope; it's one of many style guides consulted in building MoS, though it is one of the main five or so, only some of which are American). That was more "only my preferred sources matter" hypocrisy and cherry-picking. More of that here: "someone with a strong preference for CMOS has managed to get that into the MOS" (Yes, it's clearly the CMoS conspiracy!). In same post: "as it gets more aggressively rolled out in a global project" (If you don't agree with TDW you're "aggressive". And TDW is again trying to make an ENGVAR case for something that cannot possibly qualify for ENGVAR because of WP:COMMONALITY which supersedes it on all but the most ingrained features of a dialect of English.) The editor simply lacks the information and understanding (about language, English style, MoS and its history, WP:Consensus, etc.) to contribute usefully to these discussions, and cannot seem to resist being snide to opposition, combative against "the system", and finger-pointing at individuals who get in DPW's way. Then the canvassing/collusion post: "if you're yet another person who's frustrated with WP:JOBTITLES but you don't want to put yourself on the receiving end of the kinds of threats and personal attacks that are par for the course from its defenders here, feel free to contact me privately. This is something we'll be working on for a while." [130] Above, TDW is playing a CYA game, claiming this meant to take it to user talk, but that's not a plausible interpretation, since no discussions on-wiki are private. Aside from that, forming a WP:FACTION on-wiki with the explicit purpose of lobbying against a guideline is verboten; WP:MFD will delete such pages with prejudice, and has done so many times in the past, per WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTHERE, WP:USERPAGE, WP:TPG, WP:NOT, etc. (For an MoS-pertinent example see here, and another here). When I objected to this, TDW exploded: "This is the second time you've directly threatened me for having a different opinion from you." [131] (Just plain false. If TDW cannot tell the difference between "a different opinion" and "violating WP policy", we have a really serious problem here.) Repeats the same hyperbolic nonsense: "direct threats when someone disagrees with you". From same post: "Changing things on Wikipedia often takes time, especially when you know there's existing small-but-determined opposition, which is obvious to anyone who's been on Wikipedia for more than five minutes." (Just doubling down. Not "Oops, I shouldn't canvass and conspire", but an stated plan to continue for a long time, because TDW things battle lines are drawn, and that doing this is normal. This is the main reason I think a T-ban is necessary; this could translate into years of disruption otherwise. From same post: "you're already under one discretionary sanction for your talk page interactions over the MOS." (Wow. Not only is this factually wrong – there is no such sanction – the obvious intent of this is to be threatening/intimidating. If anyone doubts that, notice that this ANI thread was opened not long afterward. Even after TDW was corrected about this "sanction" thing. Another competence problem: if you can't stop running to a noticeboard to file an unclean hands vexation ANI to get an upper-hand in a content dispute, even after you realize your "smoking gun" is gone, then you need to step away from the topic area, for a long time.) From same post: "I'm not going to reply to any more of your replies containing threats lest I get drawn into the mire. (Not just yet another false accusation of threats, but a supposed excuse to refuse to address the problematic behavior and to escalate, and TDW did just that in coming here.)

Note the complete lack of acknowledgement of any concerns raised about the editor's behavior, the generalized hostility to anyone who does not agree, the sanctimonious assumption of correctness and that anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong, strange conspiracy-theorizing and apparent inability to distinguish a guideline from people following it from people who worked on it back-when, and no efforts at dispute resolution before running off half-cocked to ANI, after complaining that even hinting at ANI is a "threat" and an "attack".

As far as I can determine from TDW's repetitive but rather unclear ranting, all of this pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric was generated simply because someone who did not understand the guideline attempted an RM that DPW and others (apparently correctly) opposed, because all of the sources for that particular case capitalized it. That's it. In TDW's mind this somehow transmogrified into a conspiracy of those "three people" (sometimes TDW says two, sometimes five), who had nothing to do with the guideline wording, and also a terrible guideline that must die no matter what. It's just a WP:CIR matter, if someone can't discern the difference between a) a guideline, b) people talking about and following the guideline now, c) people involved in the RfCs that formed the guideline quite a while ago, and d) one random person who apparently misunderstood the meaning of the guideline. I mean, gimme a break. All this drama, for that? I think I in particular have been targeted because I dared to stand up to TDW's blunderbuss assumptions of bad-faith and stupidity on the part of those TDW's disagrees with, was critical of TDW's actions, and keep getting "cited" in "per SMcCandlish" !votes in discussions that TDW desperately wants to WP:WIN.

That's enough for now; past my bed time!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Firstly, as per the Arbitration enforcement log, SMcCandlish was the subject of a discretionary sanction in May 2019 banning him from interacting with another user for six months over his talk page behaviour on this exact topic. I'm not sure why he's trying to deny this: these things are publicly logged for a reason.
• The RfC he refers to is ongoing and, as of this morning, had three !votes. That's not "not going the way TDW wanted", that's an RfC that desperately needs more input. This is, again, part of the problem: suggesting that it get more feedback (such as by advertising it on the talk pages of the specific high-traffic pages it proposed to amend) is treated like an outrage warranting escalation to even more aggressive behaviour because he sees three !votes as being a completely adequate response to an RfC and gets very angry at the prospect of someone seeing otherwise. My thread on that talk page was obviously not intended as an RfC but my own comments and a request for an informal discussion.
• I wasn't canvassing for "an offsite group to pursue forcing MoS into "the right version", I was conscious that it was likely some people who may have relevant views were being scared off by the aggressive responses I was getting from SMcCandlish for raising it, and suggested that people who might want to collaborate on an RfC could contact me elsewhere. As someone else said above, I absolutely could have phrased that better, but I've had no engagement with this topic outside of that talk page and one WP:RM and don't plan otherwise.
• I'm not sure what form of dispute resolution I could have pursued apart from this: I want the threats and aggression to stop so everyone can work towards a respectful resolution to this, and all I've asked for here is that they do because it's clear it won't stop unless the message comes from senior editors. I'm not asking for more than that.
• I said from my very first comment on that thread that I had issues with how it was being applied in practice and that it should be amended to make things clear. It would be a bit hard for me to think it was a "terrible guideline that must die no matter what" because clearly there needs to some guidance on capitalising offices, and I'm not an expert beyond recognising that some of the ways in which it is currently being applied contradict overwhelming source usage going well beyond the WP:RM that caught my interest. Because the response was so aggressive from the get-go and the very fact I'd raised an issue seemed to be met with rage, I think SMcCandlish entirely missed what I'm trying to do, and what the take of any RfC I move will be. I do think there's a desperate need for some much wider consultation on the finer points of this because, as the history with diffs someone did this morning of the history of that guideline shows, it's generally been instituted and expanded with extremely small amounts of participation.
• There's no assumptions of bad faith or stupidity, although there is, as noted above, some concern about the willingness of people to declare "consensus" from three to five people agreeing on an issue affecting vast amounts of articles. This is, however, largely a process issue as long as people are willing to engage, but it's very difficult to try and move something like that forward when someone is being extremely aggressive: it has the obvious tendency to polarise things. No one is disputing that there are several people who share SMcCandlish's views on the actual content dispute and agree with said views in discussions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Having been formerly subject to a mutual temporary I-ban != "you're already under one discretionary sanction". Verb tenses matter. So does the distinction between WP:IBAN and WP:ACDS. That was just another attempt to backpedal, like claiming that the canvassing to private conversation for long-term strategizing on how to get what you want didn't mean e-mail and protracted tendentiousness.
  • Lots of RfCs do not garner more input than that. We're all volunteers here and cannot be forced to comment on matters that don't interest us. The RfCs close nonetheless and are taken as valid. If not that many care to comment, even via WP:FRS, then that's just how it is. Anyone is free to run another RfC if they think one is needed, and to neutrally "advertise" an RfC to other pages while it's still running, though the result in this case would be predictable (the proposal in that RfC was rather weird, calling for using a completely different capitalization style in the lead sentence, and I think everyone here knows that would never fly).
  • Nope. You're just backpeddalling more and more. It's fine to retract it, and it's good that you're effectively doing so with this. But you can't pretend you didn't write these things: "feel free to contact me privately. This is something we'll be working on for a while" [132] ... "A fire always starts with a spark, and traction only comes from people discussing the issue. This is the first step, not the only one." [133]. The only legit sentiment that can be good-faith distilled from that is that change happens through discussion. But that means on-wiki not "private" discussion, and it isn't "traction" in winning a dispute.
  • For starters, try raising your concerns on a talk page with that editor, without falsely accusing them of "threats" and "aggression", without implying three-editor (or is it two, or five? get your story straight) conspiracies to deny you your pet style, using snide language that implies everyone but you – from fellow editors to off-site style guides – are stupid and "grammatically" wrong, without pretending that sources don't use varying styles, etc. People are often boomerang sanctioned for filing a vexatious ANI grievance with unclean hands and without having made any direct resolution attempts with whomever they're targeting with the ANI.
  • There are no "threats" or "aggression" or "rage" towards you. It's weird to me that you'd use hyperbolic argument to emotion like this (after much of the evidence about you focuses on this bad habit) in the same breath as complaining that I exaggerated your displeasure with the guideline. However, you haven't identified a way to change the guideline other than to propose doing every title differently, by following a simple majority of whatever sources we happen to turn up at the time for that particular case. That would amount in practice to having no guideline, which is what I suggested your goal was. It's not how style is done (or can be done) on Wikipedia, or we would have no consistency at all, even within the same category. See WP:Common-style fallacy; this idea comes up all the time (especially in pop-culture topics). Finally on this bullet-point, the vast majority of our WP:P&G pages' material is instituted with low levels of involvement, and it's always been that way. When P&G material remains stable for long periods and is informed by RfCs and the like during formation and affirmed and refined in later ones – as is the case here – it presumptively has consensus (see WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy). If you want to propose something like "no substantive P&G changes without a 25-editor quorum" or something, you know where WP:VPPRO is.
  • The diff pile provided above conclusively demonstrates consistent (habitual? I don't know, not having diff-dived your editing elsewhere) assumptions by you of other editors' bad faith and stupidity. Every other post you made in these threads has a conspiracy theory or an everyone's-an-idiot-but-me insinuation in it (or both), sometimes more than one per post. That's what's "extremely aggressive"' and "has the obvious tendency to polarize things".
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The interaction ban was obviously what I was referring to, even if I may have gotten the exact basis under which it occurred wrong. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of needing to imagine a second one.
    • That RfC was a call for specific amendments to many specific, high-traffic articles, and yet no one notified those talk pages that there was an RfC to amend them because the RfC's backers were convinced three or four was fine participation. There's no reason not to notify those people: more participation is good, and it undoubtedly gives the guidelines more moral authority when it's proposed to change them down the line. The disinterest in soliciting wider impact on wide-ranging changes is certainly a process issue - and the persistent allegations of "conspiracy theories" for raising it is yet another attempt to shut down people raising legitimate issues with personal attacks.
    • There's no backpedalling there: at no point have I shown interest in doing anything beyond working with some other users on an RfC, though I clearly should've been more aware of the prospect for my words to be deliberately taken out of context considering the comments you had already made at that time. For someone who's enthusiastically been accusing me of "conspiracy theories", I've no real history of editing outside my area of interest at all and didn't plan to start now even if you managed to convince yourself I was sekritly up to something besides working on an RfC.
    • Trying to raise concerns about the aggression of a user who escalates each and every time the subject is brought up doesn't work - here, just as in real-life. For that to work, there has to be the possibility that they're capable of de-escalating on their own without being told to do so by someone they'll listen to. A statement that I was disengaging from your most aggressive threads because I'd had enough was something that you tried to cite above as an escalation on my part (after again escalating your aggressive posts in response to that). I've got no enthusiasm to subject to myself to escalating rage any more than I absolutely have to.
    • You're absolutely right that we haven't identified a way to change the guideline. That's exactly why we don't have an RfC already, why I've been pushing for further discussion the entire time, and why I've looked for interested editors to work with me. I'm seeing cases in which WP:JOBTITLES is attempting to override overwhelming source usage and I'd like this to stop. I also completely agree that "following a simple majority of whatever sources we happen to turn up at the time for that particular case" is completely unworkable. And so, there's a need to fine-tune what we have around the edges so we've got clear guidance that doesn't wildly clash with real-world usage in some situations. I might be able to come up with an answer that gets us closer to that point given time and research - but so might someone else. And that is the kind of thing we could've gotten to if discussions weren't being derailed by the extreme aggression. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Please stop melodramatically calling every disagreement with you an accusation, an attack, aggressive, rage, or anger. It's a very tiresome and transparent argument to emotion fallacy. And you keep doing it even after this is pointed out and after you've been asked to stop. I.e., you are playing the WP:IDHT game again, and intentionally escalating by being inflammatory.
      • No one said there's no reason not to more widely advertise an ongoing RfC. But we don't advertise expired RfCs (though we might re-open a recent one), and more to the point we don't canvass specific people to them.
      • I don't believe anyone's going to read what you wrote (which I quoted) without concluding that you're backpedalling, so I'm not interesting in circular argument with you about it. However, while you did suggest (in genuinely aggressive terms) an RfC at one point when it suited your uncivil rhetorical purpose ("time for an RfC to whack WP:JOBTITLES on the head once and for all .... the take of this handful of users ... the usual suspects on this page." [134]), when it came down to it you later appear to have opposed the RfC idea twice when others wanted to do it: "because of the hassle of going up against the hardcore RfC crowd" [135] (whatever that means), "An RfC is one way of people discussing the issue, but nowhere does it mandate it has to be the first step." [136]. You made circular, miring arguments that re-re-repeated a lot of venting, then ran to ANI to make false accusations of being personally attacked, instead of just dropping the stick and moving on, or opening an RfC, or at least getting out of the way of others who wanted to. (As I've said repeatedly, I think the proposed RfC is unnecessary and will have a predictable outcome, but that people should just do it if they want to rather than continue to argue about wanting to.)
      • "a user who escalates each and every time the subject is brought up" – That's one hell of an accusation, for which you've provided no evidence. Meanwhile, my diffs demonstrate that this actually describes your own behavior (which has actually continued right here in ANI!). So, more projection.
      • "You're absolutely right that we haven't identified a way to change the guideline." – I never said anything like that. I said you didn't propose something workable. You've just been a signal-to-noise-ratio problem in the discussions, pointing fingers at others (very repetitively), making false pronouncements about grammar and sourcing (ditto), mistaking one editor's misunderstanding at RM (which had no effect beyond unanimous opposition) as a cause for battlegrounding against a guideline and everyone who follows it properly, and getting in the way of other editors who already have a clear idea what they want to have an RfC about. Utterly nonconstructive and anti-collaborative. You're wasting other editors' time just to grandstand. Same with this ANI report. WP doesn't need "interested editors to work with [you]" on doing more of any of that. Next, it's not possible for an inanimate guideline to be "attempting to override" anything; individual editors might do that, and you should raise the issue with them. The whole reason for all this drama around you is your failure to understand the difference between "Editor X tried to mis-apply a guideline" and "The guideline is broken, must not have consensus, and is really a 2/3/5-editor plot, I can't make up my mind". We are not missing "clear guidance that doesn't wildly clash with real-world usage in some situations". If source usage is overwhelmingly in favor of a variance from what MoS prescribes in some particular case, then we apply that variance, already; there is no hole for you to patch. The guideline needs some clarity work, as the re-opened RfC on a narrow point about the lead sentence indicates, but that's a discussion you've already !voted in. I hope this is the final round of this waste of time and energy. I fear you're going to recycle the same fallacies and changing of your story, and I'm going to keep pointing out it's fallacious while diffing evidence of what you really did and said. Cf. the first law of holes.
         — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • There is no drama around me whatsoever outside of your aggression. There is a discussion I started, which everyone else is engaging with fine and has already moved things forward in a number of ways. The crux of this seems to be that you have an intense disdain for people generally discussing what they perceive as issues with the guideline at all outside of an instant RfC that you could fight against: you repeatedly refer to discussion as "battlegrounding", you repeatedly declare taking the same interpretation as overwhelming real-world usage as "making false pronouncements" and you've just said that it's "getting in the way" of users with a different opinion. I understand that you don't want me or anyone else to work together (or talk about potential ways of working together) about changing the guideline, but that's an attitude issue for you to work out rather than an issue anyone else on either side needs to take into account. If you don't want to engage in discussions about guidelines in which people are expressing views you might not agree with, don't do it and take your (to use your turn of phrase) WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality elsewhere - there are a bunch of people who strongly agree with you on the content issue who are more than capable of doing that in a constructive and respectful fashion and seeing if we might perhaps move things forward. It can absolutely be the final round of this argument in that case - and in the meanwhile, everyone else will work on finding some common ground, or, failing that, coming up with a proposal that can draw as wide consensus as possible. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Where's the Rfc-in-question that has currently 'low' participation? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: First mention in the first sentence... (MOS:JOBTITLES). It started in November, but has has very little participation until recently. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Just commented there moments earlier, guessing that might've been it. That Rfc's tag expired about a month ago (mid-December), thus removing it notice to a larger community. It should've been closed & reviewed, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Formal closure's not really necessary when the result is unanimous, and WP:ANRFC has a big backlog (especially around the holidays), so no one bothered requesting one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It's just been re-listed, so no probs. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. While it's true that a formal closure isn't always needed, I think it's fair to say that trying to change a large number of articles based on an RfC with only 3 participants is likely to result in significant pushback. Whatever the reason for the former low participation, at least, again for whatever reason, it's getting a lot of attention now so hopefully a well accepted consensus will develop. Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Am I the only one to find it funny that for all this talk of The Drover's Wife receiving a topic ban, it was, I think, impossible for them to receive a MOS/article titles discretionary sanctions topic ban until this ANI? I had a quick look at the logs, and don't see any sign they have received or given an alert. And from their comments here, I'm doubtful they were involved in any cases. Technically I'm not sure if they meet the awareness requirement even now since this is neither arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement but still since they are talking about it, it's perhaps a stretch to suggest they are not aware, partly why I didn't give them an alert. (That said, I also wouldn't bring a case against The Drover's Wife based on this ANI as an indication of awareness.) Might it have been better to simply give an alert rather than all that talk about how their behaviour may lead to a topic ban? Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  "Awareness" requirements apply to WP:AC/DS and WP:AE actions involving DS; not WP:ANI matters. Community decisions and sanctions are not bound by such bureaucracy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sure but um WTF does that have to do with anything? I never suggested that they were as it's completely irrelevant to my point. No one has seriously suggested TDW be topic banned in this thread. There was intensive talk of them being topic banned elsewhere. This would almost definitely have been in the form of a discretionary sanctions topic ban, something which TDW, may very well never not be aware of, since quite a lot of regular editors don't know much about the discretionary sanctions as evidenced by their unnecessary concern or argument when they receive an alert. But that would have never happened since rather than giving them the necessary alert, you thought it helpful to tell them how so many people are topic banned etc for that. Even though these nearly always come in the form of discretionary sanctions topic ban and you never actually bothered to give them the mandatory alert, something which as I already said, is not only necessary but may actually be useful as something they as a regular, may have been unaware of. Unlike all the other nonsense you sprouted. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  As a further follow up, from my experience as a regular at ANI, probably 80% or more of the time when someone comes here with something which is covered by the discretionary sanctions process and tries to ask for a topic ban and the proposed recipient isn't illegible eligible for the discretionary sanctions process because no one alerted them, the result is effectively 'WTF didn't someone give them an alert earlier? Oh well never mind we've given them one now. If they keep at it, take it to AE' and it's done. The discretionary sanctions process isn't perfect by any means, but for all its flawed it's often easier and more drama free than ANI.

  So while technically anyone is still eligible for community sanctions in an area covered by discretionary sanctions, it's rare and mostly happens when admins were reluctant to sanction someone or when they are unable to decide on an outcome, perhaps because it's too complex or unclear if it's covered, or well 'politics' i.e. because of the popularity of the participant; and whatever the case the community wanted more. Sometimes it's also use for a more 'bespoke' sanction than is likely from the discretionary sanctions process. It's not generally used when the only issue is that someone thought it better to sprout at length about how an editor is going to receive a topic ban, but then never gave them the mandatory alert.

  The MOS discretionary sanctions doesn't seem to be a good example, since despite your claims, topic bans from it seem rare. (Although for the record, I counted 1 topic ban which is I think active but irrelevant since the editor is indeffed arising from the DS process, and none from the community.) By comparison if we compare Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log for American Politics 2 or Palestine-Israel articles, or Eastern Europe, Indian and Pakistan or GamerGate, or heck even BLP or Fringe Science, to similar topic bans shown here Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community, well the difference is obvious.

  So I stick by comment. It's silly to make such a big deal about topics bans to a regular, if said regular has never actually received an alert and heck may genuinely be unaware of discretionary sanctions in the area, or even how it normally works, and the alert would hopefully greatly help them understand both matters, far more than your comments, and it's an area right smack in the middle of something covered by the ds process.

  Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  Correct a typo illegible above, thanks to User:Nick Moyes for alerting me! Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm glad you didn't change "sprout at length". Narky Blert (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly hijacked account vandalising Northern Ireland issues

I came across @Lottolads: after he vandalised my user page. Upon further review of his edits, it seems he has been recently vandalising certain Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland related pages. Including this most recent one on Unionist politician Paul Girvan here, which in my opinion is bordering on libellous. I suspect this account may have been hijacked so can I ask if admins can investigate please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Except for your talk page edit, the recent edits of the user look more like extreme POV than vandalism to me (with the disclaimer that I understand little in Irish / Northern Irish / Scottish politics), which, however, does not make them more acceptable. Let us hope that the user would come here to explain themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The edit that The C of E links to isn't purely explainable as PoV editing – changing the party a politician is affiliated with is at best incompetence, but when it is from the DUP to Sinn Fein it does look rather more like vandalism. Coupled with changing his political positions described, his nationality from British to Irish, and inserting a claim that he is Catholic (highly unlikely for a DUP MP!), this definitely looks like vandalism. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And doing a little digging: here Lottolads adds a controversial and unsourced claim to Democratic Unionist Party, and here we have the addition of an unsourced claim to a BLP that someone is an Irish Nationalist. That's just looking at Lottolads' most recent 50 contributions – it looks like there may be a problem with Irish Nationalism-related topics, which is an area under discretionary sanctions. (Although as far as I can see, they haven't received the DS notification...) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a long-standing user who has not previously, to my investigation, demonstrated these problems before. I would suspect a possible compromised account, given that. However, the user is ALSO clearly interested in Irish topics since they started editing back on 2015, so perhaps not. --Jayron32 13:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Most of Lottolad's (smallish number of) edits look merely WP:POVvy, but the linked edit on Paul Girvan was outrageous: changing country of birth from one to another (Northern Ireland to Ireland), his political party from one end of the spectrum to the other (Democratic Unionist Party to Sinn Féin), and reversing his stance on same-sex marriage from opposition to support, directly contradicting the sources. Narky Blert (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Lottolads. Lottolads has a history of logged-out vandalism, and it looks like the editor has decided not to be so sneaky about it any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe instead of not noticing they were logged out as happens with many, an editor failed to notice they were still logged in? Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's their little brother/sister/dog.-- Deepfriedokra 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass rollback?

I can't make Writkeeper's script work or I'd probably do it myself. User:2001:8003:55CB:7101:F1C8:257C:B1B:8A27 started by reverting a talk page post by User:Supreme Deliciousness on something irrelevant to Israel[137] and then proceeded to revert more talk page and article edits by the same editor, add the word "Israel" after "Jerusalem" multiple times, and a few ARBPIA violations. I don't see any constructive edits at all and have blocked their spree(eg at times 4 edits per minute). Is there anyone here who can do a mass rollback (or fix mine!)? Doug Weller talk 15:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: when I just checked there were only 4 pages where 2001...'s edit was the current revision, I just used undo on them. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The rollback script worked for me ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. @Justlettersandnumbers: I've probably put it on the wrong subpage or maybe it's conflicting with something. I know the ARB function in Twinkle always gives me an error message (although it works when I reload) and I get edit conflict messages at times when I've saved with no actual edit conflict. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I'm probably the single worst-informed person here when it comes to user scripts; for reasons I can no longer remember I have that particular one in my global Custom JavaScript thingy, even though I only use it here. That seems to work for me, so might for you too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42's repeated block deletions

Jamez42 continues to delete large blocks of well-sourced text (2-28-19, 4-11-19, 12-29-19, 12-31-19, 1-6-2020) from United States involvement in regime change and in Latin America to the point of being disruptive. In particular, he keeps deleting material related to the U.S. efforts to support the ouster of Nicholas Maduro by the U.S. in support of Juan Guaidó, using economic sanctions on oil and bank accounts, verbal threats, and the possibility of military intervention which go back to Obama. As you can see, his block deletions have been going on for almost a year since Guaido declared himself President of Venezuela, while the WP:RS is unmistakably clear about the U.S.’s goal of toppling Maduro in favor of Guaido.

He does this despite having participated in this RfC where the closer found:

[T]here is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela.

He has been warned a number of times by different editors:

• By Oska who came to the article based on an RfC notification.[138]. Oska wrote on 7/7/19:

Removal of whole section on Venezuela by Jamez24 either by commenting it out or by wholesale removal

Jamez42 has been removing the whole section on Venezuela either by commenting it out or by completely removing the text. It is fine to raise problems with the text or make edits to the text. It is *not* fine to simply remove the whole section or make it disappear completely for the ordinary reader by commenting it out. I have had to revert their attempts to effect this disappearance twice. I am asking this editor to follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss process rather than escalate to an edit war. Oska (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• By me 12-22-19 (deleted without archiving), 12-30-19, 1-1-2020
• By Cmonghost: 6-30-19 and 11-5-19 saying I'm disappointed to see that you removed the information again, with a false edit summary no less, while discussion is still ongoing. It would be more productive to follow WP:BRD. It is part of this discussion where Jamez42 was WP:STONEWALLING to keep the material out.
• By SharabSalam for edit-warring 1-6-20 (deleted without archiving)
• By Simonm223 3-7-19 You really should examine your biases: I ‘’strongly’’ suggest you stop editing Venezuela articles for a while and look at other parts of how the encyclopedia function. Your edits do introduce a systemic anti-Maduro bias into literally every article you touch.
• By NinjaRobotPirate for edit-warring at Hugo Chavez (predecessor to Maduro) 3-11-19.

Although I think he should be topic-banned from articles related to the Venezuelan politics per Simonm223, I am simply requesting that he be topic-banned from further edits to:

• United States involvement in regime change
• United States involvement in regime change in Latin America

A few months might be enough to get his attention. Or a warning to follow Oska’s sound advice above. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply I would also like to ask for a couple of minutes to reply to the section, since I was notified about the section a couple of minutes ago and there's important information being left out. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to decide between addressing either content or editorial behavior. Since the former has been talked about in depth in articles talk pages, I will talk about the latter. David Tornheim fails to mention that the complete RfC result, which took place in August, said:

There is no consensus to add the proposed text to the article. However, there is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela, just not in the form proposed.

Since late December, a week ago, Tornheim has repeatedly attempted to introduce the Venezuela section in the United States involvement in regime change article without discussing said changes despite being asked to. Contrary to my changes, these take place in the span of a week, and not a year. For reference, I'd include a timeline here:

• 16:51, 28 December 2019 (Last stable version, before dispute)

• 17:40, 29 December 2019
• 16:19, 30 December 2019
• 01:15, 2 January 2020
• 03:37, 6 January 2020
• 04:01, 6 January 2020

The Venezuela section in the article date back to the addition by a dynamic IP just days after the start of Venezuela's presidential crisis, a controversial situation and where "United States involvement in regime change", at least during the first days, was debatable. Back then user Bobfrombrockley said

I'm a bit worried that the section on Venezuela at the end is getting rather inflated due to WP:Recentism. It is now one of the longest (if not the very longest) section in the article, despite not being more noteworthy than eariler more significant events.

I have stated that it is important to evaluate the extent and the intentions of the involvement in the crisis, and among the concerns and reasons I have cited for my changes, I have quotes original research (WP:OR), neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), undue weight (WP:UNDUE) and Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (WP:ONUS).

Whichever it is the case, I have added several changes myself in an attempt to find a common ground or to improve the section, such as including the content in an "Accusations" section (20:48, 30 December 2019), which was an agree version with Oska in the United States involvement in regime change in Latin America article, and including a section focused on 2019 (05:25, 4 January 2020), after discussing and reaching an agreement with Cmonghost.

When remove sections, I always provide an explanation, usually discussing and commeting about it afterwards

• 09:11, 28 February 2019 (Since this is ongoing and controversial, I'll comment the section so a discussion can be opened regarding if Venezuela should be included or not)

• It should be noted that this it not a removal, but hiding the text

• 18:35, 11 April 2019 (Support to opposition is not the same as regime change. Possible WP:OR)

• 00:23, 15 April 2019
• 16:55, 16 April 2019
• 12:52, 17 April 2019
• 13:47, 18 April 2019
• 13:55, 18 April 2019
• 18:40, 6 July 2019 (The RfC starts from here)
• 13:04, 7 July 2019 (RfC)
• 13:24, 7 July 2019 (RfC)
• 18:22, 7 July 2019 (RfC)
• 19:56, 11 July 2019 (RfC)
• 20:41, 11 July 2019 (RfC)

• 21:49, 29 December 2019 (Tendetious editing and non neutral phrasing. See talk page section on Venezuela)

• 14:42, 30 December 2019

• 11:56, 31 December 2019 (Removing Accusations section per talk page discussion)

• The only reason why I removed this section, as I have explained to Tornheim before, was because that both Cmonghost and David Tornheim disagreed with its inclusion. I would have kept it otherwisse, like in the United States involvement in regime change in Latin America article.
• 11:30, 1 January 2020

• 6 January 2020 (Restoring to last stable version before dispute, on 28 December (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_involvement_in_regime_change&oldid=932860112), where there is no mention on Venezuela, until a version is agreed upon)

• 15:29, 6 January 2020 (Summary, pinging editors involved in the RfC)

Tornheim remains to participate in several of the discussions or acknowledge many of the previous ones, mainly the Stable version section, which is specifically about the explanation of the last changes.

I am a little confused of why the complaint was filed, since in our last exchanges I felt that the situation had de-escalated and Tornheim started a section on the Neutral point of view noticeboard, meaning that I was expecting further disputes could be resolved in the talk page, with the help of third parties and without needed admin intervention so soon.

Speaking about content dispute, I want to leave clear that I support including a section on Venezuela about events that happened in 2019, specifically economic sanctions and financement of Guaidó.

I hope that the situation is not generalized and every case is evaluated individually. As for the rest of the cases mentioned before, not related to the article, I can go into detail into each one of the them, but since the response is long enough already by now I will only cite my response to NinjaRobotPirate to give an example:

Hi. I understand the reason of the message, but I only wanted to mention that I think it was a little too much severity. After my second revert, I pinged the IP in the talk page to start a discussion regarding the recent changes and explained in another section the policies I based my reverts on. I notified them on their talk page as well, but I received no response, which is why I reverted again. The IP blanked their talk page, in which they already had nine warnings for different reasons, and reverted again without providing an explaination or an edit summary, which is why I filed a report on the ANI. In any case I still thank you for the warning and in the future I will take care with my edits in the article. Best wishes

I did not include the links since the template was not being displayed. I'm all ears to any information or insight needed, or any help that I can offer. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• From what I see here, I’d say David Tornheim makes a strong case for a comprehensive topic ban of Jamez42. The multiple warnings by multiple editors to Jamez42, who appears to have a clear POV against the Maduro Government, have not been effective. Jusdafax (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have also had concerns about the ability of Jamez42 to comply with NPOV on a range of articles related to left-wing governments in Latin America (not just Venezuela) and have previously raised them). I would suggest the topic ban cover this entire area of politics. Number 57 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I'm writing a comprehensive answer to David Tornheim's complaint, but since other users have addressed a topic ban:

@Number 57: In our discussion about the Center for Economic and Policy Research in the Bolivian general election I apologized that my edits could have resulted disruptive or hasty. You are a well established user and we have worked in articles about elections articles in the past.

I apologized to Oska too when they pointed out my removal, and I proposed to start an "Accusations" section in the United States involvement in regime change in Latin America, which remains currently.

I will point out that my main fault is probably being WP:BOLD in Venezuela topics articles, which are inherently controversial, and in turn results in me being WP:RECKLESS. I guess what I'm trying to say is that at the end I really seek to discuss significant changes and not to continue them unless there's a substantial change to it. I addressed and answered to several of the concerns in Tornheim's talk page, where I feared some of the allegations against me ammounted to personal attacks.

This being said, I think it's important to mention that I've had not as much activity in articles of politics of other Latin American countries, namely Ecuador, Chile, and Bolivia, only of which I think the latter has been when I have had the most disagreements, and not as much as in Venezuela's. If my edit behavior is determined to have been disruptive and if it is needed to be stopped, per WP:PUNITIVE, I'm willing to adopt restrictions that could help with this, including 1RR. If that is considered not to be enough, it can easily be a topic ban on modern Venezuelan politics articles.

However, I also want to comment on my contributions on articles that include translations and Spanish references, that as I have mentioned in the past, I think are needed in these articles. I would like to continue improving content in the future, but only constructively. I will agree on whichever is the best course of action. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know about Jamez42's history. I never interacted with him before. Lately, I saw some.. what should I call it? Gaming the system? or claiming that there is consensus and editwarring?. I do edit war sometimes but I usually have fair arguments but what I see from Jamez seems to be POV edits. About the dispute, there was a dispute about a term that Jamez considered WP:LEBAL when it was obviously not. And the second dispute which I still haven't participate in is about whether the U.S. preventing left-wing governments is a regime change and should it be in the scope of the article. I was also going to join the discussion and possibly link the discussion to Russia involvement in regime change and see how we can solve this all together in both articles as both must be treated equally. However, based on what I am seeing here, I doubt that I wouldn't waste my time while trying to solve this because the other editor might be pushing-POV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Topic Ban at least Jamez42 is an aggressive POV pusher whose efforts to make sure anything mentioning Venezuela fits American narratives are so aggressive that I literally stopped editing that area of Wikipedia to avoid them. Their comportment has never been stellar and, based on the information above it looks like these bad habits have intensified. While I'd be satisfied to see them topic-banned from articles about Latin American politics, I question if they are a valuable contributor to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I just thought I'd make a note here about one of the matters I'm involved in above, relating to the "accusations"/"allegations" sections on the regime change articles. Jamez says above that they removed the content about Venezuela in this diff because David Tornheim and I disagreed with its inclusion. But I never said I thought the content should be deleted. I said the content should be moved back to the appropriate location. I've continually expressed concern (on the talk pages of both articles) that moving all the Venezuela content to this new section (which has only ever included Venezuela) serves mainly to cast doubt on the material contained within it, which violates NPOV and isn't what section headings are supposed to be for. I've attempted to fix this ([139]) and have argued against it on the talk pages ([140][141][142], the last of which never received any reply) but was reverted by Jamez42 ([143]) so I basically gave up. But I don't think it should be represented above as if there's a clear consensus for its inclusion. As far as I can tell, David Tornheim and I both oppose it and only Jamez42 is in favour of it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Threatening messages

I am somewhat concerned about some threatening messages that have been appearing on my talk page by Kudpung. He has just messaged me to state that he has been “researching” me for the last two hours. I have tried to disengage with this editor, but I am concerned he may be trying to “out” me, or is engaging in some sort of harassment. If an uninvolved admin could please assist, it would be appreciated. I would prefer not to be intimidated, which is what this feels may be an attempt at. Thank you :-) - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my curiosity was indeed kindled by some recent comments of yours so I looked up who you are which I'm perfectly free to do. It led me onto an interesting trail to say the least - one which I certainly wasn't expecting - but I haven't accused you of anything and I don't know how you could possibly be outed considering that among all your other accounts you claim this one to be your real name. I have better things to do than harass anyone, but if there is something in your recent past that embarrasses you, unless it is a breach of policy, I'm hardly the person to pursue an agenda as you have seen. You haven't exactly tried to disengage though. Quite to the contrary, you have constantly complained so much about my competency as an admin that I tried to end the animosity with a quotation from the bible. And that's all I really have to say unless Chris troutman would like to chime in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Fancy seeing this here. Cassianto^Talk 07:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The message looks like harassment and/or intimidation to me. There was a lot of bad faith shown by Kudpung (including references to suicide) towards both this user and others in a policy discussion prior to this. Chris walked away from it and I closed it - I'd link to it but am on a mobile phone. Honestly think Kudpung should be counselled that he is talking to real people and should back down now from such behaviour. Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos:, here is a link to the discussion you reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Orderinchaos, you might choose to disclose your COI with Sherlock. ∯WBG^converse 09:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What COI might that be? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

    For a starter, being acquainted off-wiki and derivatives, thereof. ∯WBG^converse 09:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

    • that’s not a conflict. I also know Jimmy Wales off-wiki, same with Tim Starling and a bunch of other people. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

      The problem starts when these off-wiki acquaintances start arriving out of nowhere (w/o mentioning that they might be biased) and indulge in power-posturings of taking non-conforming administrators to ArbCom et al (vide this), every time you find yourself involved in some mess/dispute. Also, as far as I see, the relation between you and one of the above 2 folks definitely goes far more than being mere acquaintances but I will leave that for now. [On a side-note, K's behavior was not much optimal, either.] ∯WBG^converse 09:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I know of Andrew via editing Wikipedia. I met him at a meetup. How did you know about this discussion? I’d imagine the same way he did. I’m not sure what you are implying, but I think you might want to be careful before you make an accusation without any foundation or evidence. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

We live in the same country (around as far apart as London and Moscow, or Miami and Los Angeles). We have met once in person. We both are long-term editors. That's kind of as ridiculous as saying two Americans or two Brits in the same situation have a conflict of interest, and it's a long bow to draw. Personally, I have a strong sense of justice and I tend to jump in when it is manifestly violated, or when common sense doesn't seem all that common and I think I can help. And for the record, I didn't even hear about this from Chris - the matter has been discussed by unrelated people (not even in the same country as either of us) in a public forum elsewhere. Only posting as it was called into question, my intention is otherwise that I've said my piece and I'm glad others are dealing with it. Orderinchaos 12:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Extensive discussion here is very unlikely to lead in a productive direction. I suggest that Chris.sherlock and Kudpung agree to stay away from each other, which it seems they are both willing to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Gotta go with Newyorkbrad on this. I respect Kudpung a great deal for the work he is done, but I think he has gotten carried away here. If there are problems with Chris.sherlock's editing, Kudpung should file a report at the appropriate notice board. And we really should not go about "investigating" one another beyond filing at the appropriate notice board.-- Deepfriedokra 09:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m happy with this if I can be reassured that I am not going to get “outed” in any way. I also do t appreciate having the Bible quotes to me in disputes, but I guess that’s another point entirely. I ha e been told that he has found some material on me, and I’m absolutely certain he was saying it to threaten me. What will the WNF be doing about threats, out of interest?

For the record, there is no problem with my editing and no substantial claims have been brought to my attention by anyone, other than me criticising K for his behaviour when tagging articles. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I would like to understand what Kudpung meant by the fact he spent two hours “researching” me. I would like to know, in private, what he found and what he intends to do with this information. I would also like to know why he is sending me messages stating he is digging into me. Is he digging into my life outside of the wiki? Is his information accurate? Will I be slandered? Will he find something embarrassing and use it against me in public? What was the purpose behind telling me he is deeply researching my life? Why does he think that is acceptable?

In particular, I would like to know how an admin, who is held to a higher standard, is allowed to post threatening messages that makes me fear for my safety on my talk page. And I genuinely do fear for my safety, and my family’s safety for that matter. I am not expecting these genuine concerns to be swept undervthe rug by a person related to the WMF, and I do expect my concerns to be taken seriously. Furthermore, I don’t expect I should need to directly engage with the person I feel is threatening me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It's much simpler than you think. There was some kind of disagreement that I have not seen. Then you mentioned your previous accounts at Kudpung's talk and naturally he looked at their interesting history. Kudpung has no intention of revealing anything personal about you—there are no threats or intimidation. Please accept that someone with an interesting background is going to attract heightened interest. That's all. I had totally forgotten that I had commented at a discussion regarding you and I discovered that after spending a bit of time "researching" some background mentioned above. It's what wiki-addicts do and it does not mean anything bad. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

He actually didn’t say that. He was quite vague. He actually demanded I disclose who I was, so I did. All of this is in the open. I still want reassurance as to what he found. He quoted the Bible to me. This is not normal behaviour and I have had no reassurance whatsoever that his unhinged two hours of research (which he failed to specify was on-wiki or off-wiki) found scurrilous information, and what he intends to do with this. It is absolutely not normal behaviour to announce to another editor you are extensively researching them. It is absolutely not acceptable from an admin. Until I have a reassurance or clarification as to what the nature of his investigation was, I feel I am being personally threatened. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung's message is clearly intended to have a chilling effect upon Chris, and it appears to have worked. The community here should clearly and unambiguously censure Kudpung for this behavior. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I too think it is a rather cryptic message to receive from an administrator. Kudpung should be advised that having the power of an administrator, comes with a responsibility to protect the editors and the encyclopedia. Being vague and cryptic regarding an editor is not great behavior. I have seen Kudpung do great work. This is hopefully an aberration. Wm335td (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ye gods. Chris.sherlock jumped into that discussion with hyperbolic posturing, immediately tanking the light/heat ratio and having a grand time condescending to Kudpung (to the extent that I also wondered whether he had some special axe to grind; no wonder Kudpung went digging). The Ideal Equanimous Admin, whom I'm sure we have on ice somewhere, would have ignored that; Kudpung caved in after half a dozen prods and postured back a little, which was unwise. Discussion was closed. Trouts all round. Now we are here for a rematch because Chris.sherlock feels "threatened"? This is just drama for drama's sake. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Last night my anxiety went off the scale. I have severe PTSD, which I am getting help with. This causes me extreme anxiety at times. When Kudpung said that he was extensively researching me, I had been being peppered with messages on my talk page. I had attempted to disengage last night, and tried to respond in a way that tried to deescalate the situation. I got repeated messages after I had explained to him, quite civilly I feel, that his actions in misusing PROD (he claims something is not notable but makes no attempt to see if the article is notable or not beforehand - he has admitted this!) were inappropriate. He got quite irate that I felt he wasn’t following the spirit of WP:PROD. Indeed, when I pointed out the general procedure - which virtually everyone has agreed he didn’t follow, he accused me of wikilawyering. He was already implying he was investigating me before the thread was closed.

After the thread in question was closed, I received the following message,

” I won't be, unless you give me cause to. However, your comments at WT:NPR rather surprised me because your past, 'might' not be quite as illustrious as others may be led to believe. Indeed, my question to the NPP community was to deliberately AGF on one person's editing in 'very good standing' , without opening any old wounds. Either you are not aware of them or are choosing not to be.”

At this point I realised he may have started to fixate on me. I tried a neutral response, which clearly enraged him even more. At this point, despite me trying to end the conversation, he wrote:

” You certainly have an unusual manner of expressing yourself for someone with your history. There's a lot 2 hours of research turns up.”

At this point, I realised he had fixated on me. Not only did he state to me that he spent two hours “researching” me, he implied he had “turned up” something. Personally, I doubt he “turned up” anything that is not already known, but I was extremely concerned when he started quoting the Bible to me. In particular we quoted John 8:7 “he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone”.

Is this normal behaviour? I don’t think so. He claims he has done extensive research on me, for hours. He implies I have sinned. Taken together, I realised he was trying to intimidate me and was implying that he was going to reveal something. Now I doubt he has anything he can reveal, but he could also have “found” something that wasn’t true. He has many fans and admirers who might take this at face value. It was a threat and an attempt to intimidate me. Last night I had nightmares. I worry about the fallout for my family.

What did I do? Firstly, I called him on it on my talk page that I felt intimidated. Secondly, I brought this to AN/I to be reviewed and ask for assistance. I have had no further interactions with him. This is good, but the implications that he had “dirt” on me and had been stalking me for hours - which he was gleeful telling me in my talk page - along with an unhinged attempt at referencing the Bible (!), by an influential admin who seemed fixated on me genuinely made and makes me feel threatened.

Now you can dismiss this if you like. Personally, I think this is harmful and shows a lack of empathy. But what I will say, whether you be our be it or not, is that I was genuinely frightened for my safety. I actually reached out to the WMF channels because I was so concerned. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm half tempted to bring this to arbcom. This is beyond the pale --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I am appalled not only at seeing this example of very creepy and threatening behavior towards Chris (someone I apparently worked with for years and respect), but even more appalled to see any admin encouraging that we overlook this kind of behavior from an admin or ask Chris to avoid an admin who launched his own investigation to intimidate. With The ed17 (is that a first?) and Guerillero-- straight to Arbcom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A quick look at Chris' mainspace contributions shows he is clearly here to write an encyclopedia, and I know Missvain definitely is. Kudpung's repeated spamming of Missvain's talk page (that seemed to kick this dispute off) seems rather out of character. I have occasionally seen these lapses in judgements (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly's of Cornwall) which does raise cause for concern. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• The comments by Kudpung on multiple spaces are clearly meant to intimidate chris sherlock and missvain -- and its not a the first time that he has shown undue attention on an editor "discovered" through his work on New Page Patrol or participating in conversations where someone disagrees. Sadads (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• I believe that this should go to ArbCom as well. You can get a good sampling of the concerns related to Kudpung in the guides listed off Template:ACE2019 as well as some of the questions that I asked [144]. --Rschen7754 19:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Apart from the PRODspamming of Missvain's articles, I'm more concerned that Kudpung doesn't actually understand what PROD is actually for (let's just be clear - "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." (i.e. the deletion is uncontroversial). This isn't a PROD. Nor is this. Or this. Or, indeed, this. Yet he PRODded all of those, created by Missvain, in the space of a few hours. Don't get me wrong - I'm not 100% convinced they're all completely notable, especially the last pair - but regardless they're certainly not PRODs and AfD would have been the the venue if indeed there was an issue. So that's either incompetence or harassment. If Kudpung isn't capable of understanding notabililty, he shouldn't be doing NPP. And given this issue and the one above, ArbCom might well want to take a look at what's he's doing. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Uh - am I missing something here? Some user talk pages were deleted out of process when a user vanished, now that user is back under yet another name and the old talk pages have not been restored. And as he always did, the user is playing the permanent victim. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive threats

Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs)

The editor has made four false accusations of stalking and threats to bring me to ANI in an apparent attempt to stop my contributions. They also keep posting to my TP despite my demands that they stop posting there. As they haven’t brought this to ANI, I am bringing it here in an effort to stop the threats.

Diffs:

• 20:06 5 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Objective3000&diff=934297853&oldid=934286280
• 00:38 7 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Tessa_Majors&diff=934521970&oldid=934519572
• 02:26 7 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikieditor19920&diff=934537158&oldid=934532207 (In edit summary)
• 02:57 7 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Objective3000&diff=934541580&oldid=934300033

They have also accused another editor of stalking and threatened them with ANI in the same period.

• 00:16 7 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SharabSalam&diff=934519200&oldid=934501701

The editor also threatened admin action against me last July and then complained on El C’s UTP. This is the threat and the result:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Objective3000#Tag_removal_at_Antifa_(United_States)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C/generic_sub-page13#Continued_removal_of_cleanup_tags_at_Antifa_(United_States)

I am not asking for any sanction. I would just ask that the editor be informed that attempts to intimidate editors with opposing views is not proper. O3000 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This fits the definition of WP:HARASSMENT

Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

Wikieditor19920 should be warned to desist or face a block for so clearly violating this policy. - MrX 🖋 14:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Bishonen warned Wikieditor19920 about similar behavior just a few days ago. Perhaps the warning didn't stick. - MrX 🖋 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Clearly not a threat per WP:HARASS#Threats: Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats. If you feel threatened by it, perhaps tell them that? Oh wait, you told him to never post on your talkpage after his first post there ever. --Pudeo (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not a very helpful comment. Was it intended to be? An editor is making repeated, unfulfilled threats to a single user in the context of basic content disputes. Whether that meets the wikilegal threshold for harassment, or whether it's just annoying and disruptive, I think it's behavior that is not WP:CIVIL and it's certainly not something I would want to be subjected to. - MrX 🖋 16:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait, you told him to never post on your talkpage after his first post there ever. No, that was not their first post there. You will find it in my list of diffs. But you are correct that I demanded they stop posting on my UTP -- after which they posted twice more with threats and accusations. O3000 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

MrX You have absolutely no basis to jump to any conclusion here. This is a frivolous and abusive report by Objective3000. I was ready to let this drop, but now I'll provide some context. O3000 and I were both involved at Talk:Ilhan Omar for about a week. We both strongly disagreed with each other about a content proposal on that page. Fine. Then, all of a sudden, O3000 suddenly appears at a discussion I had been actively involved in at Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors, a rather obscure page, to disagree and argue with me. This is an obvious case where it seems likely my contributions were followed, and I think any editor's antennae would be raised if someone they disagreed with at "Page A" suddenly appeared to aggressively disagree with them at obscure "Page B" where they had no prior involvement. I [him] on his talk page how he ended up there and whether he was stalking my edits. He [with a belligerent non-answer and told me "never to post on his talk page again]. I gave him notice that if the behavior continued, meaning if he were to suddenly appear at more pages I was at to contest my edits, I would file an ANI report for stalking. 03000 then proceeded to cause trouble at Murder of Tessa Majors by [subtle changes] to implement a proposal still under discussion, which he was arguing for and which has little support, without mentioning it in his edit summary. (The proposal was an article move. Most editors opposed. He proceeded to change the bolded intro to reflect the name of the proposed move, which makes little sense.) Me and another editor raised a concern about this on the talk page and he was reverted. At this point I gave him another warning on the article talk page. He then proceeded to post on my talk page with a phony "polite" message about "personal attacks and threats" (I've made no personal attacks against him) after demanding that I "never again" post on his. I posted a response talk page,] giving him my last warning about the disruptive editing and. I got the "never talk to me again" note from O3000.

There is strong evidence he followed me to another page after disagreeing with me on another, made disruptive edits at that page, and clearly won't let it drop. As I indicated in each of my warnings to 03000, I would only file a report if he either a) appeared to stalk me to another page or b) continued to disruptively edit the article mainpage at Murder of Tessa Majors. And let me say that I would have filed a report had he done either of those things. If he didn't, then, as I told him, there would be no problem. Now, for those warnings, he is reporting me. My guess is that 03000 is not asking for a sanction because he knows he's in the wrong. If an editor gives another good reason to believe they are stalking them and goes out of their way to make trouble, it's perfectly appropriate to post a warning about stalking. I really have absolutely no interest in a protracted dispute w/ 03000, and I really regard this report as abusive/bullying. It is within any editors right to respond to perceived stalking with a warning, especially if that apparent stalking is accompanied by disruptive editing. (I realize I've assumed that 03000 is a "he." Apologies if this is incorrect, treat it as a gender neutral "he" if not.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the editor has accused three editors of stalking that I know of, the two above and nableezy: [145] and [146]. As to why I would edit such an “obscure article”, perhaps I heard about it because I have lived in the same borough in the same city as the victim for decades and it's in all the local papers. Seriously, the editor should stop assuming those with whom he disagrees are stalking them. As for the rest of the above, it's about content and not behavior -- although it contains a lot of false claims. As for why I brought this to ANI; that should be obvious. It was the only way to stop him from continually threatening to bring it to ANI. Look, all I asked is that the editor be informed that this behavior is not acceptable. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

First, it's totally inappropriate for you to bring up unrelated interactions with editors from months ago, with no context, and put these forward as if they stand as evidence of me doing something wrong. Second, this story has been in the paper for weeks, but why is it that you suddenly show an interest at precisely the same time that you and I began interacting? Can you really claim that you did not view my contributions and find the page that way, or that you had no idea your behavior would give the impression of WP:STALK?

Second, if you're going to accuse me of "false claims," then be specific, because nothing I've asserted is false. You knew very well that the change you made to the article I noted above was the subject of an ongoing RfC. It was another editor who pointed that out on the talk page. It's perfectly within my right to give you notice of this behavior. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I've made my statement and have no interest in defending myself from your constant accusations. Please take Bishonen's warning to heart. You are exhibiting WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior and have been for months. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible IP range block?

I have been editing articles that are related to the Pixel smartphones for the past 2 years. However, I have been noticing a similar IP range that has been giving undue weight to Pixel articles. This is bothersome as the edits maintain a consistent narrative. Pixel phones get their fair share of legit criticism from journalists but the IP range's editing behavior does not maintain NPOV.

I tried to narrow the range with the CIDR suffix, it seems this might be the IP range: 85.48.186.58/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edits have similar behaviors with reverts and edit summaries: [147] [148] [149] [150]

I'm also seeing similar behavior in the contribution history. I also understand /16 is pretty much specifying an ISP node (MediaWiki is telling me this is 65,536 IP addresses). Could anything be done in regards to curbing vandalism from the IP range? – The Grid (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The Pixel edits seem to be coming from Special:Contributions/85.48.184.0/22 and Special:Contributions/90.174.0.0/21. But these edits are definitely not vandalism. Vandalism is when someone replaces an entire article with curse words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't state it was vandalism but I can see how you did with my usage of the {{IPvandal}} template. I couldn't really think of a better way to show the IP range links. I think the issue that points out the most is possible 3RR violations even when comments are addressed. The IP hopping prevents pinging or discussion except at the respective talk pages. The IP range is aware of the talk page as seen in Pixel 3 and Pixel 4. Would it be better to consult here or AN3 if this persists? – The Grid (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hunan201p (talk · contribs) personal attacks and preventing me to edit.

Hunan201p (talk · contribs) avoiding to use the talk and says I am doing "blatant censorship" although the older version is wrong and misleading, I explained it on Ashina tribe's talk page.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934641402 "Removed Beshogur's POV penmanship"
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934641237 "Restoring blatant censorship of longstanding and reviewed content by Beshogur. You are not allowed to re-write articles to fit your POV. Doing so may already have guaranteed that you will be blocked.", long standing does not mean it is always correct.

I have put my time and rewritten the article, and explained in talk section what I changed. Hunan201p says I am not allowed to edit. That is censorship. Here, Talk:Ashina_tribe#Beshogur's_opinions, Hunan201p is removing sourced content by giving his own opinion without any source, saying that those sources are not correct. here is the rewritten version of Ashina tribe, can administrators check if I did any mis thing? All are well sourced, and I checked all sources at origin section here, which they are valid but the text is completely misleading. Beshogur (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the fourth time in 1 week that Beshogur has abused the noticeboard after someone reverted his independent re-write of an entire article. Is that something that is going to be taken in to consideration this time? Hunan201p (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I am abusing nothing. What is wrong of my rewrite, can you please explain? I am not going to wait for other users to wait their rewrite. And you can not prevent me by doing it. Are you an admin? If you have problems do it on talk page of Ashina tribe. The revert you did contains misleading informations as I have explained, this, what you did are violating the rules by putting non real info. Also to show admins what he did, four times

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=932878319 "Undid revision 932818291 by Beshogur (talk) Reverted falsified edit by Beshogur, left bluelink and explanation at talk page. Please post your references at the talk page with detailed explanations in the future, will be reporting you to an admin if you pull this again"
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=932955130 "Undid revision 932884442 by Beshogur (talk) You have done it again! I left a bluelinked reference to your most recent falsified attempt to label Ashina as Turkic, using a reference that does not explicitly state such. Because you continue to use non-bluelinked references that don't support your claims, I will be reporting you. Strongly advise leaving this page alone and discussing on the talk page."
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934263011 "Undid revision 934238782 by Beshogur (talk) Undid revision by Beshogur, did not find new source material to replace disputed references"
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934269858 "Undid revision 934266674 by Beshogur (talk)"

although he did not revert it this time. I want to show what he was doing. Now doing the same with me rewrite of the article. Beshogur (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, you seem to be confused. Wikipedia is not a race, and you're not competing against it. This article as it stands has multiple well-referenced academic citations arguing a similar viewpoint, which you are, by your own admission, in a race against time to censor. This should be enough to warrant a block from your editing Ashina tribe and Gokturks. Hunan201p (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you answer? Have you checked the sources itself. The text written is misleading and sorely wrong. Seems like you did not read them. I have controlled them one by one. Plus I did not remove them on the rewrited version, I corrected them. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not only did you not correct them, it is not your duty to do that in sweeping unilateral edits. The references were reviewed by multiple users, including Wario-Man, and all supported the original statements, which you originally deleted (along with the references themselves). This is the fourth time you have abused the Administrator's noticeboard with frivolous content disputes. I vote for a block. Hunan201p (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no more words. You confess that you did not check them saying others did. You still do not understand, nothing is wrong with the references, the text written is misleading and wrong, I did not remove them. Some texts were written two times as well. How many times am I going to say that? I have put all of them before, did you even read them one time? Beshogur (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a solid consensus for or against Beshogur's edits on the talk page. Beshogur, please stop reintroducing content against opposition; one day passing without editors responding to a talk page discussion is not a green light for you to reintroduce contested content. Give the talk page discussion more time; there's several other editors who may weigh in even if Hunan201p refuses to (although I would encourage Hunan201p to engage on the talk page as well). If more than a week has passed without progress on the talk page, take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard or convene an RfC. Don't start a new ANI discussion until these steps have been taken. Hunan201p, please try to be a bit more civil on the talk page and in edit summaries. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

So nothing said about his former 4 edits I listed above which were clearly

POV pushing? The main problem is this user's behavior in general. Also thanks, I will take it to resolution noticeboard. Beshogur (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

39.32.220.50

user:39.32.220.50 just violated the BLP rule after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It does not look like you told them what the problem was. Your warning said they were entering defamatory information. I don't see that in their recent edits. Instead, please indicate what you see is the problem, and explain in detail what specific thing they are doing that you want them to stop. You and I both know that they are changing birth years, but you did not let them know this was the problem, so how are they supposed to know to stop that? Warning templates are poorly suited for this purpose, you should perhaps in the future just type out a direct message. --Jayron32 18:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: addition of potentially malicious material to computer security articles

I see that there is a pattern of IP editors adding potentially malicious material to Macro virus and other malware-related articles such as Trojan:Win32/Agent, Xor DDoS and Cydoor, of a sort that might be useful to tech support scammers. Some of it is actually happening in real time: see the history of Macro virus for an almost instant response to my revert.

I've reverted and protected articles and blocked recent spamming IPs, but there seems to have been a lot of this from multiple IPs over a long period of time. -- The Anome (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)