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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

MarcusBritish personal attacks

In this edit, User:MarcusBritish doubles down on his personal attacks on me that he started in an RM discussion here. I understand that he has some things to argue about, but this is not the way. His personal attacks should be stricken. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you quote the part that's a personal attack? I'm not really interested in reading someone's manifesto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: At a guess, it's within these last sentences. The proposer is out of his depths here, trying to revise a topic in which there are editors far better suited to the job. Proposer's claim "most sources don't cap it" is a lie. His dating is selective, misleading and abuses the notions of editing in good faith. Finally, proposer is on a never-ending crusade to rename all "Campaign" articles, without waiting for discussions between other members to reach consensus. This is disruptive editing loaded with mishandled evidence and contempt for English standards. This is deviant attempt to Americanise historical articles. How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. I've applied bold to what I'm guessing may be the personal attack. Amaury • 05:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he accuses me of lies and bad faith, but the entire paragraphs are personal attacks. Instead of focusing on the issue, he is talking mostly about me, as he perceives me. He talks about my past, my country and state of origin, my career, etc., all as part of saying why I'm not fit to argue my point with him, a military historian. I agree it's a huge wall of text; it should all be stricken, rev-del'd, and then he can be invited to try again if he can do so without the attack. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote the start from my second link (and there's more that came in earlier threads, easy enough to find since he has very few edits this year doing anything other than arguing to capitalize "Campaign"): N-grams produce spurious results that don't tell the whole truth. Neither does the proposer. He doesn't use genuine references, only cons the community with cherry-picked samples. Has no genuine interest in history, and probably doesn't own a single historical text. Editors should stick to what they know and not meddle in areas they have no clue about. This is too personal and accusatory of bad faith. He can make points about N-grams without attacking me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like MarcusBritish was subject to an indefinite block from 2014 to 2017 for unspecified reasons, but it apparently involved "continued personal attacks" and a "harassing email". So, maybe MarcusBritish should tone down his rhetoric. If someone wants to strike a perceived personal attack, they can; however, policy forbids using revdel on personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The personal attack has been stricken from the RM discussion. Thanks. I care less about the bits on his talk page and the continuing untruths and attack below. Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly untruths when there are links to your own contradictory posts and made-up policies, a fine history of terminological inexactitudes. I will be making sure all your military history based RMs are notified on the MILHIST notice board, which to date you have avoided doing, be sure of that. No more lurking in the shadows with only ignorant "yes" men and no expert editors being advised who might challenge your controversial moves, and rightly so. You should be advising MILHIST yourself, instead of trying to go behind the backs of editors who worked on those articles and put in far more effort than you on sourcing material. And I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not operating on behalf of Google but are unwilling to disclose your conflict of interest. — Marcus^(talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand now why Dicklyon has tried to subvert my complaints about his moving Campaign articles. In 2015 he was blocked for several months and returned under a standard offer that requires him to not engage in controversial actions such as mass page moves. That is precisely what he is doing now. I would like for an admin to please review the comment and links I left below, as well as Dicklyon's latest history of moves, which are en masse and have caused concerns at MILHIST, concerns that he has chose to ignore and work against. Ergo, he is in direct breach of his unblock terms, which are very specific and state no date when past blockable behaviour can re-commence. Untruths, he says. Unburied truths, I say. He has committed to circumventing those terms to achieve his goal. Again, I repeat my claims that this editor is tendentious and bad faith is the case; this is not an attck it is a foregone conclusion based on observation and evidenced patterns of behaviour. Doing exactly what the unblock offer told him not to cannot be construed into anything other than disrespect for the community process which sought to reintegrate him in the first place; an offer was made and has since been ignored. Since admins are meant to remain impartial, my concerns should be given due consideration. — Marcus^(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• 12 July Marcus criticises use of N-grams with links to third-party sources identifying shortcomings
• Dicklyon ignores comment; states that "no-one has shown that moves are controversial"
• 13 July Marcus indicates criticism comment and emphasises point that N-grams data is not verifiable
• Dicklyon admits "n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story" then claims "nobody is relying on n-grams as a 'reliable source' nor as the only way to look at usage in sources"
• Dicklyon states "I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming"

Since this discussion, in which N-grams were addressed, Dicklyon has proceeded to ignore opposition from MilHist members to use of N-grams to move articles to lowercase titles. According to his edit history he has continued to move a lot of military Campaign articles, many without even using Requested Moves, but in the case of RMs only ever used N-grams as "evidence", despite admiting that they only tell a tiny fraction of the story that he doesn't rely on, and demanding other editors use books to challenge him, contrary to WP:BURDEN. All N-grams results show differences between usage of trivial sums, like 0.0000001% differences. Shortcomings of N-grams include: Google scans a limited number of sources, OCR is not reliable for scanning upper/lowercase accurately, N-grams does not identify sentences, indexes, titles, captions, etc. And most vitally, N-grams does not link to its sources, which violates WP:V - N-grams can be seen both as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH given the nature of how the results are gathered and interpreted. In the case of Waterloo Campaign, Dicklyon made a conscious choice to only search titles from 1970 - those exorcising a potentially vast number of titles from 1815. I consider this his most obvious bad faith act. He uses these results as "evidence" to to trick RMs into a false consensus. He ignored the concerns abour N-grams, by palming me off with I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. No further reasoning, just prenentious a put-down so he could move on and wilfully ignore the concerns. The entire discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign runs in the same format - someone makes a comment, Dicklyon puts it down with his own POV and no-one but me maintains their argument. This includes the fact that Dicklyon interprets policy in his own fashion, is selective when it comes to policy, and even invents policy that doesn't even exist, such as today, when I challenged him on only sourcing from 1970 - something he has never done before - he claimed We usually focus on recent decades when discussing usage in sources and has yet to respond to me request for the policy that states anything of the sort is to be practiced. Why? Because he made it up, after biasing his data to broaden the N-gram in his favour. Bad faith not only assumed, but evidenced.

To summarise, please go see the Milhist discussion, the Waterloo Campaign discussion, as well as the "evidence" he presents at past RMs related to military campaigns (only N-grams, before and still despite concerns from multiple editors); consider the claims he makes that contradict one another and the policy he raises but does not link because it does not exist. Then you'll understand the frustration. Dicklyon is engaged in long-term disruptions which he handles via WP:CIVPUSH when challenged, as well as WP:PLAYPOLICY. This is not typical good faith behaviour, and so I stand by my right to challenge it, since it is so widespread. I don't care about my attitude, this is a matter of tendentious editing, with spurious evidence, ignores the concerns of MilHist, continues to move "dozens" (exact count unknown) of articles with no verifiable evidence, only this controversially unverifiable N-gram nonsense. Moves made using a source which cannot be verified. Dicklyon can shout all day about NCCAP, AGF and whatever other policy cares to invent, the fact stands, WP:V is a core policy, a pillar, a major requirement of any wikipedia article. He knows his data fails that test, yet persists, manipulates N-grams further, undermines policy and now he's here, trying to silence his greatest detractor. Because he can't prove his Google-sourced data is strong enough, he has to force his POV in, and that can only be achieved by manipulating searches, ignoring other editors, citing fake policy, not letting a consensus be determined. All bad faith behaviours. If anyone is not convinced that this stream of behaviour is questionable, they either need to open their eyes, or explain to me where I'm wrong. And I don't mean for Dicklyon to do that himself, given his conflict of interest, though he can attepmt to defend himself, as necessary. Maybe another "Poppycock" is all a common peasant like me needs, to stand corrected? Even though my opinions were "noted", no attempt was made to correct behaviour or seek alternative sources for future moves. N-grams is clearly wiser than all of us at Milhist, put together, since our concerns have not been heeded. That's one man's pretentious ego for you and yes, it disgusts me.

You can argue between youselves about my uncivil nature all you like, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me... but this is a WP:BOOMERANG case if you actually review the widespread amount of evidence regarding Dicklyon's current behaviour and crusade, which I have seen unfolding for several weeks, challenged at MilHist, but remains unchecked. I have never reverted his edits, nor !voted in RMs until now, my concerns have been made in only two places and have been supported, to some degree. So his comment above about "He can make points about N-grams without attacking me." Yeah, we tried that, many times. He swept our concerns under a mat and trod all over it, to continue revising article titles to the way he wants, and everyone at MilHist be buggered. Screw us military historians, with all our books and knowledge, if all we need is Google and their limited inaccurate data, let's burn down all libraries and make Dicklyon master of digitised world history. Because all this behaviour amounts to is authorative, anti-consensual and loaded with POV pushing behaviour because of its use of manufactured evidence that is not really evidence because none of us can see it. — Marcus^(talk) 06:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt, and thus it's time to revoke the unblock. That indefinite block came after it was shown that he was happy to ignore basic policy, so why should we be surprised that he's happy to ignore those unblock conditions? Moreover, WP:CIR; I don't have to be a specialist in military history to know that the solid military history sources use "Campaign" in such contexts. If you're not competent in an area, stay out (that's why I don't do significant editing in medicine or speculative philosophy) and definitely don't violate your unblock conditions in a fashion that's already disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What? If Dicklyon behaves disruptively, then he should be straightly blocked. Who cares about conflicts from 2015 now? Don’t—please—make this site into a sort of ru.Wikipedia where ancient blocks are broadly used as a pretext for discrimination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The moves in question started with a discussion on the MihHist project page, and have been discussed there at length. I still have not been able to elicit a single allegation that any of the undiscussed moves was improper – just generalized whining like Marcus's. About a dozen proposed at RMTR were challenged and went to RM discussions, where the consensus to follow our usual policies and guidelines was reaffirmed. My move log shows about 75 "Campaign->campaign" moves in 40 days, a rate of less than 2 per day; not exactly "mass moves". Most "XXX campaign" articles were already at the correct lowercase title, as the original discussion pointed out. Nobody has pointed out any MilHist move that I got wrong; nobody has reverted one or opened a discussion about why it was wrong or even controversial. Marcus and a few have made generalized complaints, but can't point to a case where my move was not with consensus, or had some reason to be considered controversial; I have asked. The project talk page has been involved; a small move to rewrite the style rules for MilHist didn't get much traction there. In addition, I've moved over 6000 other articles since my 2015 unblock, and have stayed away from trouble by only moving where the consensus is clear. When people have objected to their favorite area being downcased, I have engaged in good-faith discussions, and in almost all cases the consensus re-affirmed the reason for the moves, following policy and guidelines. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign for details. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A whole debate took place at MilHist. Dicklyon characteristically boils it down to "whining", which is an attack on multiple editors at MilHist. Proving he has chosen to ignore editors with issues and step over them, set his own standards, invent policy, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. He sets his own terms for what he considers a "valid complaint", despite a number of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign having concerns regarding his moves. It is not up to him to set the terms of discussion or consensus. When someone raises issues with your edits, you stop to discuss. He has chosen to ignore and proceed. In violation of his standard offer, since these are mass moves which have been deemed controversial; 75 moves are a mass number, the timeline is moot here. There is no good faith here, rather a load of disrespectful scheming per WP:PLAYPOLICY. I believe @Keith-264 raised the initial concern regarding all these Campaign movea, and will ping him, incase he'd like to comment further. — Marcus^(talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No Incnis Mrsi, it's not "ancient" or "ru" to uphold the terms of standard offers for unblocks indefinitely. I accepted an interaction ban in 2017, are you seriously suggesting that "when enough time passes" (subjective in itself) I can just throw that away and self-determine my own terms or ignore them altogether, go get up that other editor's nose and claim immunity based on "who cares anymore?" notions? If an unblock offer was set by the community via consensus, you respect the community, no matter how much time passes, you don't give them the two fingers when you feel you've had enough... I kind of find your claim that this would be "discrimination" hyperbolical/dog whistling/virtue signalling terminology. On what level is that even the case? It's more discriminatory to turn a blind eye to wilfully breaking standard offer terms, when we know for a fact that other editors are blocked for far less, mor often. An admin's duty is to maintain the integrity of the community, not overturn it! The whole point of offers by ANI/Arbcom is not to restrict editors, but to be lenient while also preventing further disruptions by giving unblocked editors a way of self-moderating the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. This is effectively a breach of contract. The ru.wiki and en.wiki are two different cultures, no point comparing apples and oranges, that too could be seen as discrimination. All that said, I'm not saying I want to see Dicklyon indef, I'm just saying that I have gripes with his behaviour and having learned it got him blocked in the past, we can factually establish that he already knows it is considered disruptive, therefore he wilfully put himself back in this position. So it wouldn't be discrimination, it would be upholding the standard offer, which he has chosen to violate. So, to answer your "who cares?" - anyone who cares about the wiki community and genuinely respects consensus cares. — Marcus^(talk) 16:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m unable to find such person as Dicklyon anywhere in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His unblock log doesn’t mention any specific restriction either, only a decision to unblock despite some IP socking. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI: User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here. Prodego talk 04:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC and Accept reason: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) - there's the community decision and admin performing unblock terms stated. No duration/end date for those terms was specifically set. Tell me, if you accept a standard offer are you at liberty to determine when you are able to no longer work in accordance with those terms? Wouldn't that make the purpose of consensus obsolete? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit like being on parole – maintain good behaviour per the terms of your unblock. He accepted. Why should he be at leisure to ignore those terms just because "some time" has passed? Is a standard offer only a binding agreement until you get bored of it or because it hampers your editing agenda? If you think so, that kind of undermines the whole point of standard offers, designed to help once-disruptive editors stay on track. The socking issue was another discussion, I gather, but the terms of his unblock stand now, because he is editing now contrary to those terms. I wonder if the unblocking admin Prodego would agree with you the "who cares?" philosophy. — Marcus^(talk) 20:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: The Ping: I was surprised by a number of page moves all from X Campaign to X campaign. It was replied that mooted changes had been notified on the talk pages and that there was an N-gram giving campaign majority usage, which seemed to me to be insufficient. I thought that this N-gram was a blunt instrument that lacked qualitative validity. I think that Marcus is more right than wrong in this and that the proposer of Campaign campaign moves should bear the onus of showing why, not burdening others with the work of refuting his claims. Regards 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs)

MarcusBritish, Incnis Mrsi, Nyttend: In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant. All users should avoid large scale, controversial actions. Prodego ^talk 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In which case the solution is to block now, because Dicklyon has a history of large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, because he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, and there's no reason to believe that he will stop making large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves when those actions have continued from at least four years ago to the present. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Very few of my moves have been challenged or reverted, and most of the ones challenged were subsequently upheld in move discussions. If I made a handful of mistakes among thousands of uncontroversial moves, can I ask for forgiveness? I will, if you'll point some out. You can read about the one most recently reverted (by Marcus, as it happens) at Talk:Gettysburg_Campaign#Reverting_move; I don't see why anyone would consider that controversial in light of all the recent discussions reaffirming following WP:NCCAPS and such, but in this case Marcus just made a mistake in trying to check the evidence for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the only incident since that block. Looking at Dicklyon's pagemove log, which is long, I can see the now he mass-moved articles on lighthouses, which all got reverted (see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lighthouses#Naming_convention), and he also mass-moved articles on World Heritage Sites, also reverted. He had many other mass moves that seem to have stuck, including changing dash styles and capitalization in titles of train station articles. I'm not sure if these changes were discussed, as he doesn't link to discussions in his mass moves. Though he will apparently complaint about other people making "undiscussed moves" [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I made fewer than 100 lighthouse moves, based on usage in sources (was I wrong on any of those?). Sam Sailor subsequently (months later) moved about 300 lights and lighthouses to uppercase, without discussion. I had dropped out of that dispute pretty early when I saw that some controversy was developing; Sam jumped in after that settled down, and did them all his way, capitalized for no particularly good reason. I asked for some of Sam's capitalizations of longstanding lowercase titles to be reverted (see Someguy1221's link above), but Sam just did them again, so I stayed away after that. Those are the moves that should be challenged, since they violate naming policy and style guidelines. Sam hasn't been around recently, but if someone knows him maybe they can ask him what he was thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

On the World Heritage sites, those moves were subsequent to RM discussions at Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_15_May_2018 and Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_27_August_2018 in light of which they had no reason to be considered controversial, if I read the history correctly. But Randy never gives up, and got it reversed later, so now all those titles violate WP:NCCAPS. Since then I stayed out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I moved about 900 rivers and creeks, too. Nobody complained or tried to reverse the decision that we had discussed. Nobody thanked me for all the work, either. I just keep doing my bit to improve the encyclopedia, mostly without controversy or fanfare. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And I moved well over 1000 Jr and Sr bios per MOS:JR, and engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial. Similarly thousands of other dash and comma and case and hyphen fixes subsequent to clear consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221, Nyttend – Perhaps as the responding admins, you might indulge me by determing whether these MOS:CAPS edits constitute a form of COI? Since Dicklyon is engaged in moving a ton of military campaign articles, subtly changing related MOS guidelines to support his own position more closely, without discussion (note also he reverted admin Amakuru who disputed him per lack of consensus) seems to cross the line in my mind. He's been engaged in lengthy discussions and disputes since May at MilHist regarding these moves, so making MOS edits seems highly inappropriate and reinforces everything I've been saying about his autocratic nature with regards to ignoring everyone else opinion and continuing to move articles regardless of opposition. Even the comments you both made here, relating to his history of controversial mass moves despite being under a Standard Offer does not appear to have slowed him down. I'm not directly seeking to get this guy blocked, that's your call, but every argument I raise, he rejects without consideration. I'm literally competing with a WP:CIVPUSH beast here, even when I break down my argument into point form he plays ignorant and spews out demands for example cases and evidence, never accepting that the WP:BURDEN is and has always been on him, as the contributing editor. Please just fucking shoot me! — Marcus^(talk) 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely very concerning to me that Dicklyon there is not only editing the MOSCAP guidelines, but edit warring at the MOSCAP guidelines, while also in a contentious dispute over moves related to those guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My intention in reverting Amakuru with an explanation in the edit summary was to convince him, not to edit war. I'm sure he was notified; that was the end of it, it appears. That MilHist bit was clearly out of line with the rest of the MOS, and seemed to encourage over-capitalization; it needed to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has engaged in discussions at MilHist here, here and at Waterloo campaign. I have found their posts repeatedly aggressive and uncivil, rising personal attacks. The effect upon me is much the same as what they ascribe to the actions of Dicklyon. I find it unacceptable. These moves are IAW WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and criteria established by these. While objections have been raised to these moves, there has been little or no evidence presented, addressing the criteria, to retain caps. I find that the most controversial aspect of these moves/discussion to be the posts and conduct by MB. This has now been moved to MOS:CAPS. Let us hope that the discussion there does not reach the same level and focuses on the issues rather than following what has preceded. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And the Award for Best Hyperbole of ANI goes to Cinderella157 for playing the victim, whether direct or collateral, despite barely having conversed with me a month ago. I think he might be confusing my frankness and honesty for aggression, some of us don't beat about the bush, but the word "aggression" serves as a dog whistle when no examples are presented. Also, naming standards of articles are not likely to be determined here, so no point even discussing it. Although Cindy is wrong, core WP:V policy must be considered before invoking lesser MOS guidelines – N-grams cannot be verified so the moves fail to be IAW WP:V before they even reach MOS styling. Can't ignore WP:V just to turn a few C into c, that's beyond stupid – write the encyclopedia first, make it pretty later. I have to question your lack of integrity here Cindy, over-stating my behaviour simply because you support Dicklyon's position and don't want to see it undone. And yet one thing fails to escape me: you never lifted your finger once to help him move a single article, even though there are so many. You crop up in every RM he raises, giving you the image of a pandering "yes" man, and it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS} for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. Clearly you don't realise that two different RMs may not be seen by the same people, and therefore it becomes necessary to pose the same question at each. Your response was aggressive, perhaps because he sees the same flaws in your claims as I do... POV-pushing MOS standards over policy. Come back to me when you have clean hands. — Marcus^(talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The afore post by MB makes the point regarding what I have perceived and that this should be considered as "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour per the purpose of this page. It is the repeated nature of the behaviour that I have sought to raise by my initial post. I have provided links to threads by way of examples where many (but not all) posts by MB in those threads demonstrate the repeated nature of what I have perceived. MB states (without diff or fuller context): it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. I have stated that certain actions might appear vexatious. However, MB states here (in one of the threads at MilHist I have linked): "needs moving to small case because 'evidence' says otherwise" comes across as vexatious. By their own statement and standards above (not mine), the quoted text would constitute a personal attack on their part. From my perception, it is posts to the end of that particular thread (ie here) which start to get hostile. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has made this statement: Okay, enough with the trolling.[2] It is an unqualified accusation of trolling. I have struck the quoted sentence per WP:NPA. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Trolling is a legitimate Wiki-meta document. Italicising words doesn't make them any more vaild, that's your emphasis. It reeks of a desperate attemt to defame and derail the discussion. The same thing you tried with PBS and probably with editors before your topic ban. I won't go there, I'll just note that you're not a reliable witness given your own history. — Marcus^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll be pretty busy if you try to remove all his personal attacks in that section, such as "Oh boy... you can't be that ignorant, surely!? ... you love saying how everyone else is wrong but you". And "your deluded interpretations of my posts amount to fiction"; and "You constantly dismiss core policy that describes how to write the encyclopedia, because you're so obsessed with reformatting or reengineering what other creators have written." I don't think he has any real insight into what I love or what I'm obsessed with, and his concept that I ignore WP:V by posting n-gram stats is really just nutty. I may inject a mild sarcasm now and then, but I'm doing my best to not just make up expletives about what might be going on in his brain. I can't actually come up with any cogent printable theory for that, so I hold my tongue. Oh, well, as he complains there, he's "not quite feeling 'backed' by MilHist on the matter despite what I've read in those May–July threads and my best attempts to find a solution." His best attempt has just taken a solution that had been found (that is, following WP:NCCAPS per evidence from book n-gram stats and per RM discussion consensus on a dozen articles) and turning it back to a bunch of unproductive ranting about me and WP:V. Thanks for your comments, C. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Look at your own words here. "nutty" and "unproductive" – indicators of a pretentious editor who has no interest in the opinion of detractors. You and Cinarella have been at it before. You also remarked on PBS right here, loving that Cinderella called him "vexatious". Quite the tag-team you two make. And now your "friend" is here, giving you his support, not by defending you, but by attacking me. Think admins are fool enough to fall for that? — Marcus^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, "unproductive ranting" was uncalled for, and I apologize; it snuck past by restraint filter. The "just nutty" bit I have to stand by as my assessment of your attempt to apply WP:V against my work on caps fixes. If anyone else thinks this is in any way sensible, I'd like to hear from them. It's OK that you don't trust n-gram stats, but WP:V has nothing to do with this whole issue. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not projecting your own "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour which got you a WW2-related topic ban? Not sure what you're hoping to gain by linking comments made just over a month ago, which have probably been seen already, except to maintain your fidelity for Dicklyon's Crusade. Little to see here, since I told you before, frankness is not aggression. It's just plain talk which you are subjecting to your own fanciful ideals. Many Wiki editors are just as plain speaking as me, some moreso. Dicklyon knows now to man up and work round it, you should too. Wiki isn't here to change attitudes, it's a database dressed up for the interwebs, nothing more, certainly not a social club for you to be judgemental of others in. If you think anything in that linked comment can be infered as "hostile", well... plainly put: you need to go back to the dictionary and relearn some foul or offensive words. I don't see any there. Extreme hyperbole. FYI, regarding your snarky responses to PBS: diff 1diff 2, context not really required, I'll just sum it us as "aggressive and hostile" retorts to simple questions, shall I, kettle? Sincerely, frying pan aka — Marcus^(talk) 03:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Previously removed attack was replaced with this by MarcusBritish: Okay, enough with the WP:trolling. Perhaps Bishonen might explain why this is rarely ever acceptable? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This an excercise in WP:Canvassing admins now, Cindy? Is it normal for ANI to allow an uninvolved party to campaign the admins they feel will support them best? What's the term for that? Something appropriately Australian... kangaroo court! Your poison pen not enough to dramatise the conversation for your amusement? Also, it's begging the question why Wikipedia would create essays then disuade people from linking them. If you can't call a spade out, especially after 3 months of wilful ignorance and/or tendentious editing, he'll just continue arguing ad infinitum, as Dicklyon does to palm-off his detractors. You're not helping him, btw, just increasing the odds of his controversial edits being scrutinised; he isn't doing himself any favours. That move log of his..... *whistles* — Marcus^(talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Marcus, this screed is highly inappropriate. I'd strongly suggest you refrain from replying until an admin weighs in, or the discussion gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I see a stream of unseemly, loud, and bloated attacks by Marcus, apparently based on pet peeves. Dicklyon, in my experience, is highly professional in his research and propositions for RMs. I don't always agree with him, and when I say so he is perfectly reasonable. He is sensitive to feedback, though rightly holds his ground when he comes up against unresearched and/or illogical counter-propositions. Tony (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: thanks for your support. If you could place your Oppose A comment in the section #Proposal, it might get noticed better. Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Propose immediate block of user:MarcusBritish

Capitalization Wars (Campaign Campaign)

-EEng

This work is hereby condemned as an eyesore and public nuisance. For the Wiki beautification committee, -- Dlohcierekim (talk).

• Comment Why are we allowing these pithy personal attacks? He's full of commenting on the editor rather than the content. Accusing others of acting in bad faith? Really? I mean right here on this page? Why are we not blocking him right now? Let's nip this grandiloquence now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Because the other grown ups here don't treat accusing someone of bad faith as cynically as you do, perhaps? Or because accusing someone of "bad faith" is not considered a personal attack, given that it has no mention at WP:NPA as being one. They also looked at the counter claims I posted, examined the OPs behaviour and raised concerns about his behaviour. Did you? No, I didn't think so. Just marched in here without taking the time to review the situation fully and made a call off the bat, it seems. And what do you mean "right here on this page?" son? There are no limits to free, honest speech on this page, are there? No policy that says you can't uphold an argument or defend a position at ANI? You didn't even comment on what "bad faith" behaviour I questioned, which means you did not consider the cause of the matter. What good is a block going to do anyone if you're sweeping the underlying problem under the mat with it and allowing that editor to resume his "bad faith"? You realise the underlying concerns I have with the OPs editing are so difficult to resolve, that I've been preparing evidence for ArbCom, incase I need Conduct resolution, right? — Marcus^(talk) 12:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless you are the editor's parent or step-parent, please do not call any other editor "son", as you did in the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? — Marcus^(talk) 01:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And what do you mean "right here on this page?" son? The seventh sentence in the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of where I used it, Ken. Perhaps you are unaware, as an American (I think?), that the use of "son" is a commonly used term in some parts of Britain. It is used between people, towards other males, regardless of age or relationship. Probably better that you refrain from getting triggered by a 3-letter word and attempt to blow it out of proportion, since that could be seen as objecting to a virtually cultural practise that you may not understand or appreciate, and that you have no place to criticise on wiki except from a personal pov, and I'm not interested in an op-ed on my regional vocabulary or dialect from a foreign speaker. To put it into context for you, however, consider the way Aussies say "mate" or you Americans still use "sir" a lot. Just a word, which depending on the situation can be informal, formal, disrespectful, respectful or endearing. Don't apply context where none belongs, it isn't worth your time and effort. Thanks muchly for your intelligent understanding! — Marcus^(talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of its usage, Americans use "friend" in the same manner. Regardless, please don't continue to use that construction here, since in the absence of a informal familiar relationship in which the expression can be taken as just a bit of fun between friends, it implies superiority on your part. I have friends who I can call an "ass" or tell to "fuck off", because we are friends and we both know that there's continuing love and respect underneath the remark, but I don't walk up to strangers and tell them to "fuck off", for obvious reasons -- the same ones that should stop you from using "son", especially during a discussion in which your behavior is a prime element. Don't assume you have an informal friend-to-friend relationship with other editors, assume you have a formal peer-to-peer relationship until shown otherwise, and don't say anything you wouldn't say to a completely unknown stranger, your boss, the head of your school, or the mayor of your town. Simply put don't assume you have license to treat other editors as if they were your friends or inferiors, dude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The assumption is entirely on you, Ken. It neither implies friend nor foe. Only you inferred that. Regardless, it's your opinion not wiki policy here and I don't take orders from strangers online anymore than you should be issuing them. Would you have posted the same protest on Twitter or Reddit or YouTube? I say what I please. I didn't give offence, you took it. That makes it your problem, not mine. Haven't got time to listen to your stance on political correctness. If you find "son" hurtful or offensive you need a thicker skin. But since it was not even directed at you, I don't see why you're making it your business. It isn't even on-topic. Please move along, censorship in this day and age really annoys me. BTW I don't have a school, my schooling formally ended over 20 years ago... I have almost 40 years of experience in the usage of my local dialect, I don't need lecturing on its usage from someone who never lived here. I mean, who do you think you are to dictate etymology? And FYI, we do use it to strangers and acquaintances, "Alright, son!" is a very common greeting here, regardless of familiarity. Go figure. Just be glad I'm not from Manchester, they call each other "cock" (#20) there in the same manner as "mate" or "dear", and it's not the phallic term. American brain would go "boom" hearing that? ;) — Marcus^(talk) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Having read the above discussion, that was pretty much the kind of answer I was expecting. It appears that you never do anything wrong, and anyone you see as an opponent can never do anything right -- and you consider anyone who disagrees with or criticizes you for the smallest thing to be an opponent. You appear to have no real sense of scale about disagreements, it's all or nothing at all with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the amateur pyschological analysis, friend! Wasn't at all pretentious of you to trouble yourself with such a thoughtful gift. Ta-ta now! — Marcus^(talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone just close this and let us move on? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

MB seems to be somebody who might benefit from a short, gentle reminder of WP:CIV. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I also support the call for a block. This is totally absurd. No one should get away with this level of incivility.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, Marcus, as far as you're concerned, you can just say whatever you like to anyone and if they "choose to take offence", that's their problem? That sounds remarkably like another editor, that folks might remember, who found he eventually had to change his account name in order to continue editing at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Martin, that's a Strawman argument. My reference was to the singular use of "son" and not the blanket statement you just misconstrued it into. If I was calling someone a "twat", it'd be to give offense. And FYI, I've never had or needed a fresh start. Isn't comparing people to someone of ill-repute much like posting a "you're a fascist/Nazi!" remark? Certainly has that tone to it. — Marcus^(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's just as if I had called you a Nazi? Please don't address me by first name. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There's two things about people blessed with a sense of smug superiority: they're always right, and they're perfectly comfortable with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth, your repeated commentary here is borderlining on harassment now. Suggest you do one, mate. I'm sure Arbcom don't need another Fram-like character causing aggro while they're still neck deep in shit with that case as it is. Besides the fact, all this talk of "superiority" is nonsense – you're projecting your own self worth and engaging in personal attacks. You're also grandstanding, in your vain attempt to appear influential over others here with non-factual rhetorical remarks. — Marcus^(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think you are being harassed feel free to open a thread a separate ANI thread. Make sure that you can provide concrete examples of the harassment though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

(A) The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial.

(B) For multiple incidents of incivility, rudeness and personal attacks, some in this very discussion, MarcusBritish is blocked, the length of the block to be determined by the admin applying the sanction.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thank you BMK. There are ways to address the problematic behavior of anyone in any setting without creating a toxic work environment, which MarcusBritish needs to become aware of. I noted earlier his response to concerns about his toxic behavior was more toxic behavior. Recommend that the block duration be until he recognizes his rudeness and find ways to deal with disagreements without said rudeness. This is behavior that would not be accepted in any real-world work environment I've worked in and see no reason for it to be tolerated here. The Community has too long turned a blind eye to such behavior.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  per Lugnuts change to TBAN on page moves. (on proposal A)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Annnd-- per Dicklyon's apparent not "getting it" later on in this discussion back to an indefinite block, the sooner the better.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Elsewhere [3], WaltCip clarified that he was supporting (B), and had no opinion on (A). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A and B – rudeness is subjective and since Asperger's are known for their inability to handle social interaction, Dlohcierekim is not the best judge of character. Suggest C: take note of BMK's personal attacks and Dlohcierekim's willingness to turn a blind eye and thank his friend for such remarks. Seems some admins have a buddy system, yet transparent favouritism is not impartial which admins are required to be. — Marcus^(talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked 1 week for the Asperger comment. Discussion here may result in a longer block, at your discretion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  @MarcusBritish: Good grief! This is the very sort of toxicity I've been talking about. And I'm an excellent judge of character. My inability to respond with alacrity in all social settings (I'm getting better) and discomfort in social settings does not prevent me from recognizing rudeness. Seems I'm not the only person here who tends to emotional tone deafness and social awkwardness.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Further commentary Henceforth, I can no longer be considered neutral or |uninvolved regarding this user. I have never been so infuriated by a comment by another user before (started here in ~2006). I'm used to taking abuse from vandals and LTA's, and people angry over my admin actions. I take it as the price I pay for the job I chose. Never before has a member of the community stooped so low as this in responding to me. If you look through Marcus's removed talk page comments, you will see this has been an ongoing problem to which concerns he has responded with flippancy, personal attacks, and dismissal as irrelevant. Of course, I think he needs indeffed. (furious) But uninvolved members of the community may wish to consider a long-term solution to a long-term problem. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  One more thing before I stop chewing on this. My asperger's impedes my ability to recognize non verbal social cues in face-to-face interactions. In so far as I can tell, I do fine in this sort of setting. And, I might add, am better at adhering to behavioral norms/etiquette than someone I shan't name.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support B, Neutral on A While there may be context I'm not aware of, I don't really see Dickylion as having been all that disruptive. However I'll admit that I may be missing context and will not provide an opinion on whether they should be indeffed. However the behaviour shown by MarcusBritish here, up to and including since Asperger's are known for their inability to handle social interactions regarding another editor here is uncalled for. And what's more, when people have cautioned MarcusBritish that their comportment was insufficiently civil they doubled down. I think they need a time out to consider whether it's appropriate to insult an editor for commenting on your past insults to editors in a thread about the same. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both A and B: I will admit to a passing knowledge of military history; referring to large-scale, long-term strategic military plans as campaigns is not incorrect. Both persons here have been disruptive: one to the integrity of the project, one to the atmosphere of the project. On the basis of the actor realizing his error, however, I would like to request, if possible, that the blocking administrator be favorably disposed toward a standard offer for DickLyon in six months' time. Having said that, and noting that MarcusBritish has been blocked by SarekOfVulcan for a week, I cannot see MarcusBritish's particular manner of discussion as being rather helpful; his comportment, even in this very discussion, if I may argue, is and has been wholly antithetical to a collegial atmosphere. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also willing to support an indefinite moratorium on page movement for Dicklyon, as suggested below, in lieu of an indefinite block. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Support for lesser ban withdrawn, as a consequence of Dicklyon's statement in the next section. It is not his prerogative to declare my vote null and void. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B, Neutral on A. As per Simonm223. I've rarely seen a more sarcastic, demeaning and provocative tone than the one adopted by MarcusBritish here. It looks like it's just one big game to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also support Lugnuts proposal on A making a Tban on page moves. Considering the context available, that seems reasonable. And with regard to B, I'm leaning toward supporting an indef based on comportment here and evidence of past blocks.Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B as in, an indefinite block, not just a week. I told arbcom when they unblocked him that they were making a mistake. For those that don't know, the last indef block was for, among other things, insulting the ethnicity of a user he was in conflict with. And he was more than willing to take it off wiki, including email harassment, a campaign on youtube, and a death threat against me personally. He's not someone we should have here. I've had occasional issues with Dicklyon as well but he's never tried to incite people to kill me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Marcus is rather upset about my above remarks, which he claims are lies. The only part of it that is not 100% certain is whether he was in fact the person running the youtube channel in question. There is no doubt about the rest of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support A & B; both parties are clearly way over the line at which even the loosest assumption of good faith can possibly apply. Neither of them are new users and they're both well aware that what they're doing is both unacceptable and disruptive; if they're not willing to abide by our policies, they're not welcome here. Both cases are, for different reasons, absolutely textbook cases of situations where "indefinite not infinite" should apply, as in "unless and until you undertake to follow our rules regardless of whether or not you agree with them, we don't want you here". ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both Proposal A for violation of unblock conditions. Proposal B for all the ups and downs of how WP:CIVILITY has been handled over the years it is still one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars and MB's actions indicate that there is no intention of understanding that. MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both per MarnetteD. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Notice: Per WP:CBAN, Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B - Dunno what Dicklyons unblock conditions are so shan't !vote on that, Reading Marcus's replies here I get the distinct impression they simply don't care about the way they talk to people or our policies here, IMHO they should never have been unblocked. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A, Support B. Paul August ☎ 00:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on A, Support B. The sort of aggressive hostility displayed by MarcusBritish shouldn't have any place here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support A, Support B Maybe Dicklyon could have a topic-ban on page moves instead of an indef? I've not paid too much attention to their edits, so they may have already ran out of WP:ROPE. For MarcusBritish, support an indef, seeing as they've already been indef'd once, per their blocklog for personal attacks/harrasment, and their ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in this thread and their talkpage post the 1-week block. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on A, Support Indefinite on B, the latter just for their comments here. --Calton | Talk 10:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B, Opppose A as I agree with the suggestion above that a topic ban is the more reasonable next step., DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am immediately blocking MarcusBritish indefinitely per this thread, but discussion on part A needs to continue to reach consensus. Courcelles (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on A, Support B - I was already taken aback by Marcus' commentary earlier, but his Asperger's comment is well over the line. I'm indifferent on whether Dicklyon gets a block or a topic ban for the violation of his unblock, but something should be done there as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support A (B already has consensus, but I support it, too, FWIW). The discussion above documents at least three examples of Dicklyon performing mass page moves (ranging from scores of pages to over a thousand) on the basis of MOS guidelines that were later reverted. This is clear, repeated violation of his unblock conditions over a lengthy period. There is also evidence above that he was edit-warring on the MOS in support of his position while making one of those controversial mass-moves. The attempted handwaving doesn't really help; "engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial" looks good but when you think about it, the only thing it can mean is, "Lots of people objected and I repeatedly told them it's not controversial." In other words, it was controversial, just not in Dicklyon's mind. We don't need this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks for providing more detail, GR. Support an indef on this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support A. If anything, Dick has gotten more aggressive with his page moves since this discussion started. Calidum 18:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Since he asked, here is the complete list of moves he's made [4]. By my estimate, he's moved 199 articles that include the word "campaign" in their title in recent weeks, which was the locus of this dispute. Calidum 05:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Most of those came after the 5 RM discussions that all closed in favor of following WP:NCCAPS for such things, and were only for cases where sources were clearly dominantly lowercase. Only a few were "since this discussion started", which is what I asked you about. The list is easy to find, but I asked what you meant by "aggressive" and whether any of them look like they were either incorrect or controversial. Marcus's ranting does not make them controversial; I asked Wikiproject Military History to review recent moves and got no responses. So please clarify your complaint, or retract it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on page moves. The indef of MarcusBritish was overdue, his behaviour/language was completely unacceptable. Dicklyon raised this issue at Milhist, but frankly, as a general rule we tend to be pretty drama-averse (MarcusBritish aside), and most members just want to get on and create content in their area of interest rather than get involved in a running battle with someone wielding ngram results like a sword in areas outside one's area. Dicklyon appears to be uninterested in what the specialist reliable sources used in each article say about capitalisation of the word "campaign". He has decided they should all be lower-cased, and just goes on with doing it regardless. If not controversial, this behaviour is tendentious, and given he was indeffed for page move-related behaviour in the past, the obvious next step is a TBAN on page moves. I don't support an indef at this time, as I am not sure that the case for them being "controversial" has been made out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose A, neutral on B. An indef is overkill and goes to the extreme solution without taking Dicklyon's good faith actions and explanations into account. The editor's continuing contributions to the project greatly outweigh any incidental page moves, and all of those seem to have been done in good faith (WP:Assume good faith) with logic backed by evidence. The Jr. and Sr. moves were done in good faith and per the results of RMs (I was involved in the comma wars, and when Dicklyon moved the pages it was as a result of the RMs). And the World Heritage Site moves, for instance, which are also used as an example for Dicklyon to be indeffed, were originally moved to lower-case per an RM close before being correctly brought back to their proper name status, and when Dicklyon moved them it was totally within understandable behavior and Wikipedia policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Randy, I really appreciate your response here, since you were my main opponent in quite a few RM discussions on commas and caps. Now it's fun that you say "before being correctly brought back to their proper name status", knowing how much sources and I disagree with you on that! Anyway, the RM decided, so that's where we left it. Thanks again. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. I had read this discussion for a couple days at its start, but missed until now when it suddenly evolved into an indef discussion (talk about leaps of ungoodfaith). You certainly, from any of the discussions I was involved in, acted within Wikipedia good faith limits and presented evidence which you and others thought backed up your choices. That you were wrong on some is neither here nor there (mostly there), but you didn't act outside of normal page moves within the situations. I'm surprised this has even gotten this far. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A and oppose page-move topic ban against Dicklyon pretty much per Randy. I won't pretend I always agree with Dick when it comes to matters of titles and styling - he comes from the school-of-thought that we don't have to follow the sources when it comes to matters of styling and capitalisation, unless it is close to 100% of the sources, while I prefer to follow sources if they form anything upwards of a supermajority for a particular style. On the issue of page moves, I'll agree that occasionally Dick pushes through moves that I would regard as controversial and in need of discussion. But crucially, he respects consensus and he doesn't edit war or redo moves that have been reversed. As noted by Randy, his mass-page-moves are almost always following patterns that are already decided in enough community venues to make them uncontroversial, such as the aforementioned Jr. / Sr. comma debate. Dick's site-ban was lifted four years ago, and I think his behaviour in the four years since is good enough that we don't need to re-invoke that old sanction at this time. Similarly, banning him from the RM and titling space would not be helpful as that's one of the areas he contributes to a lot. In summary, Dick has come here in good faith to seek a remedy against an editor who was abusing him and justifiably so, as that has resulted in that user being banned. I don't think we should be using that as the opportunity to WP:BOOMERANG Dick, when ultimately his only crime is to want the best for the encyclopedia and to have his own strong opinions about how to achieve that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  True, I'm not a fan of "follow the sources" as letting sources vote on our styling questions, when we have our own well specified style. But in my mass moves I don't think I've crossed the line that separates us. Thanks for your supportive comments. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  While I have absolutely no doubt that the opinion expressed by Amakuru above is their own and not influenced by anyone else, I do note that Dicklyon WP:CANVASSed their participation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A, Support B. Dicklyon is a net positive to the project. MarcusBritish is not. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Many thanks. I don't believe we've met. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A. I too think the contributions by Dicklyon to the project are a huge "positive", currently and over a number of years. The moves by Dicklyon are not damaging for the content or naming of the pages by any reasonable account. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hold on here

I just noticed that Marcus was indeffed based on a proposal here, and that it's been proposed that I be indeffed, too, in this discussion that I thought we were done with. Was nobody thinking I might want to be notified, so I could inquire about the "charges" and defend myself? BMK's evidence that my moves were controverial is that some of them were reverted 8 months later by a guy who over-capitalized a whole bunch of articles, including many that were always lowercase, and that included some of the ones I had moved in Oct/Nov 2018 – and thus I am retroactively so disruptive that I have to be blocked?

And why did BMK (not even an admin, iiuc) jump in with such a draconian proposal when things had already settled down between me and Marcus?

I have particular disdain for all those who supported a block before anybody has bothered to say specifically which moves or groups of moves might be considered controversial, and why. There's a lot of hearsay there, but no actually evidence that I can even discuss. Come on people, be sensible please. If someone thinks that some of my moves were controversial, they need to say which ones, so we can look at them, before jumping to these conclusions and a disproportionate reaction. I repeatedly ask Marcus and the Wikiproject Military History to tell me if any of my moves looked wrong or controversial, or to just revert them if so. Did anyone do so? Pretty much not. Similarly in other projects; discussion has generally preceded "mass" moves, so that we wouldn't get into situations where there was any significant disagreement. If you think Marcus's disagreement was "significant", please point out where he said one sensible thing that would make you think that.

Until people point out what I did wrong, with a couple of links, instead of just reading wrong inferences into the discussion above, there is no reason to be treating me as a disruptive editor. If you think I am, show us.

All !votes before now should be considered null and void. Let's see what the case is first, if anyone will present one, and let me respond, then we can talk about whether a sanction is in order. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that only admins can make proposals on AN/I? That is not the case. Also, there was no requirement to notify you about a discussion which was ongoing, which you had participated in, and which had not been closed. If you failed to continue to track it, there's nobody to blame for that except yourself.

What you did wrong was to violate the terms of your unblock condition, which was to "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." Above you wrote that you made 75 "campaign" moves, "fewer than 100" lighthouse moves, 900 moves to rivers and creeks, and 1000 jr and sr moves; maybe I missed some as well. Some of those moves may well be non-controversial, but others were reverted in full, which means that you judged wrongly, and that they were controversial. In any case, my interpretation is that you have not "avoided large scale, potentially controversial actions, such as page moves", but have continued doing them as if you had never been indef blocked in the first place. Others may interpret your actions differently, or may see the best solution to be a topic ban rather than a re-imposition of your indef block, and that's fine, but you can hardly be surprised that after being indef blocked for making mass moves, and then being unblocked with the proviso that you avoid mass moves, that there should be the suggestion that you be sanctioned for basically ignoring your unblock conditions. I suggest that you return your indignation to your pocket and start explaining why you shouldn't be re-indeffed or topic banned.

Your suggestion that the !votes already cast be "null and void" is ridiculous on its face, assuming as it does that the !voters are unable to read the clear words in the discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation is of no interest to me; I am fully aware of what I wrote above and how you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what happened. I'm wondering whether someone has an actual case, or will say which moves they think I made were controversial, and why. I realize you reverted a move of mine once, and reverted a few of my edits without comment, but I don't know what you have against me. Did I wrong you at some point? Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Sorry, no. It's pretty clear you should stop with the page moves. Whether that happens as the result of voluntary action on your part, a TBAN or an indefinite block remains to be seen. Someone has said you have been moving pages since the start of this. That suggest the need for an immediate indefinite block to stop the disruption. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm stopping all moves now that I know there's a proposal to sanction me; a notification would have been nice. That "somebody" is who I already pinged below. And if you think there is "disruption" anywhere here, please give at least one diff, don't just go by "somebody said". Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Calidum: Since you voted to sanction me after I started this section asking for evidence, I'll respond to your remarks. You wrote "Dick has gotten more aggressive with his page moves since this discussion started." I don't know what you mean by "aggressive" here, since each of my moves is made with care and precision, where there is no reason to suspect controversy, in an aim to improve the encyclopedia. So could you point out what recent moves you think were in some way wrong or controversial, and why (and keep the conclusion of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#Proper nouns in MilHist articles at MOS in mind if you're buying Marcus's argument that his complaints involved anyone but him in that project). That would give us something to look at and discuss, as opposed to all this nonspecific stuff that was provoked by Marcus. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So, you're just going to ignore the 8 other editors (9 with Calidum) who !voted to re-impose the indef block (vs. the 3 who opposed it and the 5 who were neutral), and pretend that those !votes never happened because they occurred while you were ignoring this discussion? I doubt very much that the closer is going to take the same position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, since they are just reacting to your misrepresentation of things. I'd be happy if any of them would say why they think I have been disruptive or made controversial moves, or whatever. I can ping them if you think that would help. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So you think that this:

(A) The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial.

is a "misrepresentation of things"? You yourself outlined in the discussion above the mass moves you had made, and you yourself said that some of them had been reverted entirely. What, then, did I "misrepresent"?

A number of editors, including admins, have said -- before I floated the proposal! -- that your actions were violations of your unblock conditions. Are you going to ignore them too? You were taking part in the discussion at that point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You quoted my words in support of your unsupported inference. You're saying that if someone comes along and reverts some of my moves, then those must have been controversial when I made them. You ignored the context that this was a guy doing a large batch of moves contrary to guidelines – a much larger batch than mine, many months later, with much more reason to be regarded as controversial; and I stayed out of it after that. Look at cases instead of applying poor broad-brush logic, and see if you can say which ones were controversial and why, and then we'll have something to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably among my 7000 moves since being unblocked there are a few that are controverial; but controversial mass moves? I don't think so. I've done my honest best to engage in discussions to remove controversy before doing anything you might call "mass". If I messed up a few times, show me and we can talk. Stop paying attention to the complaints of Marcus who was an outlier in the Military History project and objected after we had the 4 or 5 RM discussions that made such moves uncontroversial. Nobody in the project supported him (a few remarked "looks better capped" and "it's a proper name" and stuff like that without reference to guidelines or sources, in some of those discussions, but when asked to point out which ones I got wrong, addressed to the project on their talk page, no answer). None were reverted; none were overturned in discussion; most of the moves were after these discussions, when no real controversy remained; just Marcus. So WTF are you accusing me of (pardon my French)? Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And review what those "previous editors" said. Nyttend said "It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt" and "he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves". Well it "sure looks to me" like Nyttend is just repeating what Marcus claimed; he certainly didn't represent any evidence or reason to believe that large number of my moves were controversial. Where is he getting this stuff? Someguy1221 complained about the lighthouse moves (whih were reverted any months later as we reviewed), and the World Heritage sites, which were following the consensus of a big RM discussion when I did them. The fact that that consensus later changed doesn't mean my moves were controversial when I did them. Did any other editor make either specific or vague accusations? Please show me if so. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So, just to recap, you're going to ignore all editors who !voted to re-impose your indef block because you made multiple violations of your unblock conditions, simply because they !voted before you were aware of the sanctions discussion, and it's your opinion that @Nyttend: is incapable of making his own evaluation of your actions and is merely mindlessly repeating what MarcusBritish said. You're sticking to your story that you did nothing wrong, that you never violated your unblock conditions, and that the editors who have suggested that you be sanctioned -- either with a re-imposition of the indef block or a topic ban (actually, the two editors who suggested that in the "Proposal" discussion changed their minds and are now in favor of an indef) -- are generally incompetent to independently evaluate your history because they were misled by my "misrepresentation" of the things you actually said in the above discussion. And you're completely closing your eyss to the argument that you made changes to MOS in order that your page moves would be MOS-compliant, and then edit-warred to keep those changes in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, yes, you're right, they may not be watching, so now I've pinged them all to see if I can learn what I'm accused of, since you won't say. Please give them time to respond, if you would. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So you're edit-warring at [5], several reverts in favor of your own position. This should be the last straw: Dicklyon pretends to be so fervently committed to MOS that he'll edit-war on articles to maintain it, yet in reality deceives others by making it look like his preferred ideas are consensus. You broke the community's trust with socking, you got back to editing with a promise to avoid a certain type of contentious edits, you've broken that promise, and now you've broken the community's trust here. Lock the door and throw away the key: this is a project for collaboration, and someone who repeatedly ignores community standards in a prominent fashion mustn't be permitted to continue editing. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. My last edit there was over 3 weeks ago, when I reverted one revert with a comment that seemed to satisfy the guy I reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing and Lugnuts: Please help me understand what I'm being accused on here. Lugnuts, you said "I've not paid too much attention" to my edits, and then later thanks GoldenRing for the added detail and voted to indef block me. GoldenRing, you came closer than anyone to saying what you think I did wrong, when you wrote "discussion above documents at least three examples of Dicklyon performing mass page moves (ranging from scores of pages to over a thousand) on the basis of MOS guidelines that were later reverted." If you review that discussion, I'm sure you'll see that you were mistaken. The only batches (as far as I know) that were reverted were the 75 lighthouses (in Oct/Nov 2018) and 101 World Heritage sites (in Oct 2018). Was there something else? Did you look into those batches to try to understand whether or how they could have been considered to be "controversial" when I did them? Is this what you want to indef block me for, moves I did last year that amount to less than 3% of the moves I've made since being unblocked, and less than 1% of my editing contributions? Am I retroactively so disruptive that I'm not fit to contribute? Please clarify the basis of your vote to block me (both of you); or change your vote. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and PhilKnight: Please help me understand the basis for your vote to block me. MarnetteD, you mention "violation of unblock conditions", but give no clue what that was inferred from; what is it that you think I did? Is there more than hearsay operating here, or was there some evidence that you looked at? And PhilKnight, you only say "per MarnetteD"; what's that about? Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@WaltCip: I don't see that you made any comments about me, yet you supported an indef block. As you can imagine, that might be something that I would care about, so can you do me the favor of saying what you think I did that makes me so disruptive that I need to be indef blocked? Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Javert2113: You say "Both persons here have been disruptive: one to the integrity of the project..." Can you say what you think I did that was disruptive to the integrity of the project? And how my opinion that your vote should be treated as null and vote rises to the level of offense that needs an indef block? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: What are you thinking? You didn't say much about me other than support an indef block. And what the heck is this about? You guys have a little blood-thirsty shark pack going at AN/I? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We serve tasty chum and punch at the meetings. Beyond My Ken ("not even an admin, iiuc") (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, don't you think that "You guys have a little blood-thirsty shark pack going at AN/I?" is a little, you know, WP:NPA-violatingish? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A little. Dicklyon (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: I don't know what's difficult to understand here. You were unblocked on the condition that you "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." You made mass page moves. You don't seem to see the problem with that. You should be reblocked.
  You were not unblocked on the condition that the mass page moves you made were uncontroversial; you were unblocked on the condition that you don't make mass page moves and other potentially controversial actions. GoldenRing (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dicklyon: It is about your dismissal of the community's concerns about your actions. It is about your nonsense of trying to say the !votes for sanctions somehow should not count. It's for your utter unwillingness to accept the need to remedy the disruption your editing has caused. Shark pack my hind foot. You've been counseled about your behavior before and have continued this episode (escapade?) while the matter was at ANI. You have left the community with no other recourse but to block you until you can convince the community that the disruption is at an end. I had thought the TBAN would be a suitable and sufficient remedy; your response convinced me otherwise.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Where have I dismissed community concerns, and how does that become a blockable offense? And why were people voting on non-specific charges against me, without notifying me or letting me response and ask for clarification? Obviously those votes should be dismissed while concerns are clarified. As for the "potentially" thing, I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up that silliness. Surely nobody can abide by a restriction of avoiding "potentially " controversial actions. You're being absurd. And the admin who wrote that already said a that I had amply fulfilled his condition with multiple years of good work. Now you're complaining about the "quantity" of my work, but won't point out any specific problems. Can you not see the aburdity here? Dicklyon (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Dicklyon, the condition was "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." This is pretty clear. "Mass page moves" is provided as an example of the sort of "large scale, potentially controversial actions" you were to avoid. In other words, ALL mass page moves are by definition in the category of actions you were required to avoid as a condition of the unblock. You seem to be reading this condition as "avoid large scale, potentially controversial...mass page moves," but that's certainly not how it was written. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • You were banned from doing something. You did that thing repeatedly. You dismiss that as "silliness". You wonder where you've dismissed the community's concerns. You wonder why people would rather indef you than have to put up with this. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Dicklyon: To clarify, at the time, I was supporting an indef of MarcusBritish. I've no opinion on indeffing you.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  @WaltCip: Thanks, that's what I suspected. If you'd be kind enough to clarify above where you said "Support per above", that be nice. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I've already made that clarification, with a link to WaltCip's comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: Why did you WP:CANVASS Amakuru here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: If you blatantly CANVASSed one editor in public on their talk page, how do we know that you didn;'t canvass anyone else via e-mail? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

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

---

on User talk:MarcusBritish‎. @SarekOfVulcan:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

permalink to dif-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's essentially a call for suppression of a comment and sanctions on the commenting user. He does say that the comment is "libellous", but I don't see any threat of going to an outside authority. I wouldn't interpret it as a legal threat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

They danced right up to the line, but I don't they crossed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:However, in their second comment, here, they doubled-down on their comment re: Dlohcierekim and Asperger's, writing that D is: "only proving that he can't handle himself socially and resorts to attacks of his own." An admin might like to take a look at that in terms of extending Sarek's block of MB, and perhaps removing TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering the gaslighting nature of MB's edits since the block I would suggest that removal of talk page access would be a benefit to the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with BMK and MarnetteD. It's one thing being annoyed post-block, and saying something in the heat of the moment, but this is on another level. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Continued disruption at Cantonese, again, again.

As was previously reported on ANI, [here] and [here] before that, Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to periodically add unsourced changes to population of speakers in the Cantonese article. user:Kanguole, user:LiliCharlie and myself have left numerous messages on their talk page asking them repeatedly to discuss their changes on the talk page, they made a single post to my talk page [here], on 10 July, to accuse us of being "Cantonese haters" (which I found highly amusing being a Cantonese speaker myself) and in effect threaten to sock if they were blocked You can block me all you want, I'm just going to keep coming. Since then, they've continued to try and add their synthesis to the article. More recently, they've given up using the unreliable source and have gone straight for changing numbers irrespective of what the source already says, effectively misrepresenting the source altogether.

• 11 July
• 20 July
• 22 July
• 26 July
• 27 July
• 1 August

Prior to the 11 July edit, they were asked each time to provide a source, but Kanguole (bless their patience) has given up asking and just reverts their edit. At this point, it is obvious we're dealing with an editor whose disregard for proper sourcing and penchant for slow motion edit warring and I would ask for a block. I will be notifying all involved editors shortly. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that this person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and that they are consuming volunteer editors' precious time instead. I agree that a block seems justified. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for two weeks, to stop the disruption. Perhaps he will reconsider his approach, though these edits don't inspire much hope.[6][7] If he continues after the block expires, I would recommend an indefinite block. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Based on the name of the citation (中国语言地图集 （第2版）Language Atlas of China (2nd ed.) i would guess the citation would only supported the number of Cantonese speaker of China. But may be missing the (estimated) figures of Cantonese speaker in Malaysia, Australia and North America, etc.. However, it is not a valid reason for Jaywu2000 to insert unsourced figures to the wiki article, especially insert in-between the figures and the citation. He did stated his figure was copied from ethnologue in his talk page (see Special:Diff/905543170), but i am not sure ethnologue had been discussed in WP:RSN as reliable source or not. And then the personal attack in his talk page (Special:Diff/905582502) had deteriorated my good faith on him. So, yup, he need to learn to use WP:RS and solving the dispute in proper way such as WP:Rfc, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. Or he need an indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki articles. Matthew hk (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually its a global estimate, but (as you say) this is something to be discussed on the article talk page. Kanguole 23:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Douchebagdelight2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a brand new account, has just appeared making this edit to the article. Obvious duck is obvious. Blackmane (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Note, this user has now been blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights as a username violation. Blackmane (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it seem now the case need to refer to SPI or a quick ping in order to determine the block of Jaywu2000 should be extended due to socking allegation. In theory his temp block had "account creation blocked" but not sure there is way to bypass it. Matthew hk (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

183.177.231.187 IP editor mass !voting at AFD (almost botlike)

[8] is posting massive amounts of !keep votes at AFD's with just keep as a comment. I'm not sure though what the game is here, but just thought I'd bring this to the attention. I do suggest a mass rollback and a block of the IP editor if possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This IP doesn't seem to be the only one involved though. From what I saw earlier and what is currently on AIV I'm not sure how effective blocking will be given the range of IP addresses involved. Maybe page protection or an edit filter might help? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have seen multiple another IPs spamming on smaller numbers of pages as well, including:

1. 175.120.209.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 111.118.45.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 172.218.222.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This is almost certainly some sort of concerted attack especially considering just how insanely fast the first IP Sir Joseph mentioned is spamming. Toa Nidhiki05 03:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I started a case here because I wasn't sure where to go - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/210.164.164.104. It has two different IPs than the above, but they are doing the same thing. SL93 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like something is going on, but even if those IP's are blocked, I think we would want a mass rollback of the !votes at AFD, which would not happen at AIV. I think there is a script or tool that does it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also:

• 180.200.51.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 210.164.164.104‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 1.250.164.112‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

creffett (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Rolled back all of these I can. I think almost all of OP’s originals IPs have been taken out as well now by myself and many other editors. Toa Nidhiki05 03:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 122.132.28.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Also this mass voter. Blocked by User:JJMC89 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Initially blocked by me for disruptive editing, JJMC89 changed the block settings. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 31.223.107.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This one too. Lamest bot invasion ever. Toa Nidhiki05 03:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 211.243.200.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) another one Toa Nidhiki05 03:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

On the off chance it becomes relevant, most of the WHOIS entries on these resolve to ISPs Japan and South Korea, though there are a couple in other places. Also, I've found a rangeblock that covers all of this...it would just block everyone else on the internet in the process creffett (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, maybe they're using a VPN?

Reckon they are all related? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Tyw7, at least one of their edit summaries would seem to suggest either concerted or long-term disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, ah that edit summary looks damning. But can anything be done against this other than range blocking?

That said, there is an SPI investigation opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/210.164.164.104 by User:SL93 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the faintest clue how to stop this, just figured that I should mention that the behavior was even more ducklike than it first seemed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 133.175.127.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Another possible IP vandal. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Blocked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• More blocked IP Vandal 27.114.29.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in case anybody wants to find any corrolation and add a spam filter. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• 126.227.218.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) back --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Do you think we should maybe temporarily lock AFDs from IP edits for the time being? Maybe say 24 hours? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is that even technically possible (or desirable) to lock down AfD from all anons for a period of time? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Cartelet, Well as seen above the AFD is being trolled by an IP. Usually, with articles, this will trigger a temporary lock. PS please ping me if you reply as I don't add ANI to the watchlist. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I know that it is likely one person doing all of the damage to AfD. I was more wondering how we'd protect all of the pages in AfD (even if only for a limited amount of time) without causing unnecessary harm to (potential) good faith AfD contributors. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Just looked at the open proxy detection page and a few of the blocked IPs are on there so it appears that the vandal is using them (and other unlisted ones) to continue their disruption. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sakura Cartelet, if this happens in the future it might be worth pre-emptively blocking those IPs? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it might be a good idea to do this although since I'm not an admin somebody else would have to do it in my stead. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a known vandal, commonly known as derp (search the archives). The IPs are going to all be VPNs, and if there's a recurrence, please insta-block any IPs but also poke an edit filter admin. Edit filters are much easier than protecting all AfDs (or anything else - they will just move on elsewhere). Just a note of caution, for various reasons it might not always be best to use rollback where this vandal is concerned. One should usually check the page history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Someone should probably make an LTA page for the vandal if they haven't yet. Seems like it would be helpful. My two cents. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to use something like cascading semi-protection to the daily AfD logs? Or is cascading only for full protection? MarginalCost (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly Cascading semi-protection is not technically possible to avoid people without sysop rights being able to (indirectly) protect a large number of pages. Edit: Yes I was correct here's the link describing it. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

While we can't protect these pages, it would be trivial for a competent person (which I'm not) to create an abuse filter that would reject attempted IP edits to any page with "Articles for deletion" in the page name. Nyttend (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

49.206.219.155

Very possibly ignorable, but does User:49.206.219.155, who has just spammed several users' Talk Pages, apparently at random, ring a bell with anyone? Narky Blert (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• 183.83.93.218 (talk · contribs)  · 206.210.160.96 (talk · contribs)  · 87.200.50.33 (talk · contribs)  · 45.64.178.87 (talk · contribs)  · 49.206.216.135 (talk · contribs) All seem to have been reverted and ignored. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Insulting messages being directed following a discussion - User talk:WilliamJE

I am aware that this is not as severe as some other cases previously stated here by other users, but I must say, the user in question's attitude toward me is appalling and following a query into the deletion of a large chunk of text on a page I had worked on, User:WilliamJE challenged my literate capability and directed a blatant insult toward me in the summary of his edits to his talk page. Referring to me as a "Pathetic loser" multiple times.

As far as I am aware, and following the guidelines set by the article - Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". I am interpreting that as a viable excuse to escalate this further, as his behavior should not be tolerated. (Particularly focusing on the insert "blatantly bigoted insults" in the quote provided)

To summarise the case, I had helped work on the page - 2019_Pakistan_Army_military_plane_crash the day of the incident, as a result, the sources that had been provided in the article were subject to change. I sourced what I could at the time with the information that was available to me and left it there. I soon came to realise that the information I had added had been deleted when the article was reverted, which User:WilliamJE claims was "bs" despite the fact that the BBC article had been updated to cater for new information and confirmed death tolls. I went to the users page to enquire about the issue, potentially falsely claiming it was vandalism as I was not aware it had been reverted at the time. The user then refused to comply with the question that had been asked and instead referred to me as "pathetic" and a "loser" and told me to "get lost". I then responded saying that he was acting unprofessionally and had no intention of resolving the dispute, which was clear from his demeanor at the time. He removed that post, again, using blatant insults for no particular reason. Perhaps it was a mistake for me not to leave when asked, and for that I sincerely apologise to User:WilliamJE, but again I do not feel as though it warrants the behavior displayed

I will inserts the links to the evidence I feel is appropriate to resolving this issue here:- [9] [10] [11]

Moving forward, I honestly just want a response, and proper criticism so I am able to properly ammend the article. I also wish for this to be looked into incase it does actually violate policy as I had figured, and so correct action can be taken for future reference. I am able to provide further information if required. WETiLAMBY (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This editor is

1. Editing not signed in as shown here[12] and here[13]. In the second of which they accuse the wrong editor
2. They have violated talk page rules as seen here[14] by reverting comments made not just by me but another editor. That is clearly a case of following and reverting or WP:DISRUPT.
3. There is no proof the BBC article ever said what they claimed and I've had a long history of removing false entries in aviation accident articles. Here[15] and here[16]. The first of which earned me a Barnstar from a administrator another editor who does lots of aviation accident article work around here. Based on their history with me and actions at List of Mayday episodes talk since I am only more convinced this editor deliberately entered something wrong on that article.

I am not going to apologize for anything I said. My talk page has had to be page protected multiple times due to abusive editors . That conduct has happened to me t other talk pages also. My talk page protection history should be adequate proof of that. Also I have made it clear that I don't think too highly of editors (Established long-term ones or IPs) that put what I term 'bullshit with a reference' around here and that is what we have here with Wet....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• @WilliamJE: One of your diffs above shows an IPv6 editing the Talk page of List of Mayday episodes. What makes you think that IP is WETiLAMBY? They've never even edited that article, I don't believe. Plus stylistically it doesn't look at all right.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't believe too much in coincidences and both that The Rambling Man reverted Wet at my talk page while saying not to post there anymore and that my post to Mayday Talk was one of my very last talk page (Where I have been very active over the years and has the original source of other abuse and probably by the sock of a blocked editor) edits before this happened and the reversion of which came at the same time what was going down on my talk page. Based on the history I mention, I got justification to think these two could be connected but I could be wrong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm going to say that for the record, I can completely confirm that I am not in the slightest affiliated with that address and I know absolutely nothing of this user. How you have linked this person to me is completely beyond me, there is no evidence supporting that whatsoever and for good reason. My Wikipedia account has been around since 2015 and have no reason to sign out. WETiLAMBY (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Can I just add that I did apologise for reverting the comment and not leaving, like I said. Also, as stated in, and as previously mentioned Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks - The contents of this article suggest that using the stated response as an excuse is not justifiable and still makes your disrespectful comments extremely demeaning and hurtful, and I am shocked by how you decided to deal with the situation and referring to me as "Illiterate" and a "Loser" degrading and immature. You seem to have no respect or no regard for any other users which I suggest should also be taken into consideration. I have said what I needed to say and I shall leave it at that to see what else can be done.

  Oh and I must also add that, yes, User:WilliamJE is known for ammending articles by removing falsified entries, however this case is different. Not only did he remove the supposed "fake entry" but he just straight up reverted the entire page back to what the previous user had done, reversing all the 100% factually correct information on the page. In my eyes that is not "removing false entries" but instead "removing everything because a single line could potentially be wrong." and at the end of the day, I was right anyway, as the death toll did infact increase to 19 <ref>https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/3020564/five-soldiers-among-12-killed-pakistani-military-plane-crash</ref>WETiLAMBY (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Special:diff/909291658 ("Iliterate, pathetic, loser go away.") deserves a block. WilliamJE has a history of civility issues issues (block log). — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So what. I never saidWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive240#Is_this_now_considered_acceptable_from_an_administrator? '"You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit." That was said by administrator around here and he wasn't sanctioned by the community. If that happens to me, how can possibly that be anything but hypocrisy when an administrator get off for the same or much worse except for this place having double standards around here. Not afraid to say what I feel around here for 10 years and won't stop calling shit what it is or that there is double standards around hereUser_talk:WilliamJE/Archive_7#ANI for certain people....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @WilliamJE: Isn't it rather weird to be citing ANI stuff from seven years ago to justify your own current attitude issues and insults to editors? (Have you even read it - the offending admin back in 2012 even offered an apology for their offensive email, so it's a very poor example to hide behind.) I think it would benefit the project if you were to take a step back, re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, take a look at WP:FRAMBAN (a recently blocked admin) and maybe even take a hint from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's disappointing when lack of respect, insults and personal attacks get in the way of cooperative working here, so I would like to see you dial back the insults quite a few notches, please. Do you think you could do that? I do actually agree with you: WETiLAMBY was wrong to speculate in their edit to 2019 Pakistan Army military plane crash (based on the one cited BBC source) that further deaths were expected, because clearly the source didn't suggest that (even if further deaths did happen). But WETiLAMBY added a lot of other good stuff too to what I guess was a breaking news story. I also guess your restoration to an earlier version, which also removed their other valid improvements to the stub, was the kind of error that anyone could have made - I've done similar myself when in haste. But I've either explained myself or apologised when called out for it, never attacking another editor personally as you did. I see an unacceptable incivility and arrogance in the way you then responded to WETiLAMBY, repeatedly calling them 'illiterate', 'pathetic' and a 'loser' (here and here). I can see you've been on the receiving end in the past of abuse from multiple editors, and that's not nice and might have led to a jaundiced view of other editors. But your attitude in your responses above leaves me feeling you're unwilling to change, or recognise that another editor might also be working in good faith, and that behind their keyboard is another human being who shouldn't expect to be insulted and attacked by you for a simple error (from WP:NPA "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.".) That kind of thing drives other editors away and is not acceptable. Maybe it was a bad day for you -we all have them - so I would invite you to apologise to WETiLAMBY for your remarks, and I'm afraid I would support a short block for an appropriate period of time, per WP:NPA, if that were not forthcoming. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Note that the edit referred to is not solely based upon one source. It cites the BBC and a WWW site. The latter is just aggregating two further sources, published by The News International and Dunya News, neither of which state that the toll was expected to rise. Nor, according to the Wayback Machine, did the BBC. It pays to get the facts straight, because doing otherwise is exactly what leads people years later to point out how bad these noticeboards are at this. Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point (the aviation safety website did actually state "Rescue officials said the death toll could rise since some of those injured were critical.") which only serves to make the abrupt removal of WETiLAMBY's edit even more unjustifiable by WilliamJE. Maybe he missed that, just as I did. But it is still WilliamJE's personal attack which is the issue of greatest concern here. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• • • I entirely agree with Nick Moyes. An apology for the personal attacks or a block. I don't care if the apology is offered due to that threat, just do it. And cut those personal attacks out now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Propose block WilliamJE

until they 1) apologize or 2) otherwise show they will adhere to WP:CIVIL from now on.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would support indefinite block for WilliamJE. The community should also consider a civility restriction. Some examples of problematic edits over the last few months:
  • Special:diff/899173888, Special:diff/899175831 ‎Are you nuts? ... I should expect this from you since you are the same nut who idiotically accused me of sockpuppetry.
  • Special:diff/881475020 I'm sick of idiot editors who don't know what they're doing, or editors who rather whine than fix their mistakes.
  • Special:diff/876291483 Your citing an article you obviously didn't read is hysterical.
  • Special:diff/849644224 You can't even put things on my page right... You rather complain about me than fix bs or admit you're wrong.
  • Special:diff/909222878 I called it what it was. Bullshit. Ruiz didn't die so it is BULLSHIT and there is far too much of it around WP.
  • Special:diff/880157903 Why are you stupidly removing valid categories?
  • Special:diff/882427914 You obviously can't read.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hold on there, Bill. Whilst I do support a block, as stated above, for their nasty personal attack, let's not be too hasty to "string 'em up high" with talk of an indefinite one just yet! We need to encourage good contributors and encourage an improvement in their attitude towards other editors. Personally, I'd prefer to see their apology and their assurance they'll adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA from hereon in, than see anyone blocked. (ANI will always be here if they don't.) But, oh dear, I've just noticed this. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Seems to feel justified in their incivility. He may or not be the only one needing a block for incivility. We need to look more deeply at this. @GoldenRing: did try the voice of reason on his talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example of how incivility poisons the work environment until brawling like ego-drunk adolescents becomes the norm. This is an example of how WIkipedia has failed itself. I still think William neds a block, but I think he is not the only one. Someone else can please sort this all out.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Can you be more explicit as to who else you think needs a block for personal attacks (what William said is far worse than "incivility")?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the overall tenor of the discussion(s) is/are so fraught with incivility and "yeah, but's", I just couldn't sift it. WilliamJE is using the incivility of others as an excuse for his own, and I just cannot wade through it enough to be more specific. If, as from his responses, @WilliamJE: could enlighten us as to 1) who was incivil to him in this latest contre temps 2) provide us with supporting dif's, and 3) indicate whether or not they later apologized, I'd be much obliged.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But yes, as he has said he has no need/reason to apologise, I see no other choice but to block him.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Forgot the @Bbb23:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked William for 48h for the personal attack and refusal to apologize. As far as I can tell, William has not presented anything that justifies the attack. In addition, any supposed attacks against him that he has mentioned occurred years ago and are irrelevant to his own behavior now. Finally, his inclusion of "hypocrisy" as a defense because so-and-so gets away with doing this and that (e.g., the use of the word fuck), is equally irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Good block. Right duration. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: He sent me an email referencing the talk page posts above my post there, which I was supposed to figure out. Do not know if they are for the "years ago" stuff. I left simple instructions above. Perhaps at some point he could follow them. Hope the block communicates the message. As I said in another thread at the top of this page, one can deal with problem editors and problem edits without rudeness, incivility, name calling and, in this instance, coarse labelling.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of stooping to the current level of (crude vulgarism) what passes for discourse today, "I'm fresh out of (vulgarism omitted) to give."-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced edits and disruption

After four warnings, Xqq1238 (talk · contribs) has continued to make unsourced additions and changes, often contradicting existing sources. Many of the changes are to countries' population and area figures. The changes are sometimes correct, but often false. The latest change, after the "final warning" was: [17] (the sources mention neither "Arabs" nor "Africans", and the figure for "Americans" doesn't correspond with the source.) They have also been edit-warring, for example repeatedly inserting the same unsourced figure for the area of Germany: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (apparently they've taken the number from de:Deutschland, but it also contradicts the given source in that article.) Most of their edits have been reverted, for being unsourced or otherwise disruptive. Some other examples of unsourced changes to statistics include: [25], [26], [27], etc.

I've already reported them two weeks ago as an obvious sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ufufcguc, an editor with a long history of thousands of exactly the same type of edits, going back to at least 2016. Not sure why it's taking so long, but in the meantime they're causing a fair amount of disruption, as usual. --IamNotU (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• They've edited after this was posted, so I warned them to respond or risk being blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Viestijä2017

Viestijä2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Suspected undisclosed paid editing (all edits). Account was previously forced to rename from "TEM viestintä" [Ministry of Employment and the Economy communications] to "Viestijä2017" [Communicator2017] on fi.wiki. No paid-contribution disclosure anywhere. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I ave them a WP:PAID notice. If they continue editing henceforth without heeding PAID, they may be subject to blocking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from IP range 2604:2000:DED1:4E00

Active since 22 July, disruptive edits originating from this IP range (Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64) have been made on articles pertaining to superheavy chemical elements, the New York City Subway, and the Hong Kong MTR. Many of these edits were either against consensus (as in the case of elements) or constitue edit warring with terse edit summaries, and they have not engaged in discussion even in response to non-template messages. So far, one page has been protected, but others have since been affected and the IP is quite dynamic. I'm not sure if this is enough to warrant a ::/64 rangeblock, but other measures have so far proven ineffective. ComplexRational (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's probably just someone who doesn't realize that it's not their personal site or something like that. Nevertheless, given that they're not responsive, I wouldn't hesitate to encourage a range block. Jc86035 (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone in the /32 range is related, but one of them has been editing pages like User:Epicgenius/sandbox/draft5 (though certainly in a more coherent fashion). Jc86035 (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. A quick check of the /32 range finds many edits that are probably unrelated (e.g. those from E010 and 15C0); such a large rangeblock could create lots of collateral damage, whereas the /64 range probably is allocated to this user or an otherwise very small group. I found the essay WP:/64 rather insightful on the mechanics of this. ComplexRational (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop at Talk:Oakland Ghost Ship fire

I can't believe it's come to this, but Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) thought it proper to abuse rollback to edit war with me over hatting his comment, which was needed since consensus has strongly rejected his argument and his comment is now distracting from the next stage of the discussion. I request that his rollback privileges be revoked, my hatting reinstated, and Bus stop warned to drop the WP:STICK.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Jasper Deng—you should not unilaterally impose your will on somebody else. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not my will, it's the will of the other editors there too. And you certainly don't use an antivandalism tool in such a dispute. I'll leave the rest to an uninvolved admin since clearly I'm beginning to lose patience here, thus my further direct participation will not be constructive (beyond carrying out the requisite ANI notices).--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No one else hatted my comment. You hatted my comment, repeatedly. I took time to compose it and put thoughtfulness into the wording of it. It is of course your prerogative to respond to it in such a way as to tell me that you think I am full of hot air and off-the-mark with my opinions. But you not just once—but repeatedly—collapsed my comment. That is not the way to engage in civil discourse. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look at the discussion, it really would be wise for you to drop the stick. No, Jasper should not have hatted your comment once (let alone multiple times), nor does he really have the right to insist that you stop discussing a particular aspect of an open discussion. That said, it is not hard to see why he is annoyed. The arguments for and against including 'Oakland' in the title have already been made. Newcomers to the discussion have sufficient information upon which to base a conclusion and it seems clear that neither you nor Jasper will change the other's mind. At this point, you are wasting your own time. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop consistently shows a lack of understanding of talk page PAGs and accepted practice. He provides an example of this in his first comment here. For better or worse, we are largely responsible for policing the behavior of those we are required to work with, and it is completely routine to "unilaterally impose your will on somebody else". I daresay I've seen Bus stop do exactly that himself, so we can add the adjective "hypocritical". I could go on and on, but that's about all I have time for at this juncture and I don't have much faith in ANI's ability to address established problem editors like Bus stop anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

As a general rule, when one is embroiled in a disagreement with another editor, one is probably not in the best position to objectively determine whether the other editor's posts should or should not be hatted. Jasper, you didn't have to bring yourself to 3RR, and I don't think you should be incredulous over Bus stop's use of rollback. Maybe Bus stop does need to drop the stick regarding the RM (which isn't closed yet, so you don't officially have consensus), but this edit war (and resulting ANI threat) is a completely unnecessary sideshow. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• The hatting and revert war it sparked is unfortunate, but must be understood in the bigger context of what led to it. I am perturbed that the hatted veteran editor who was involved in a run-of-the-mill article move request debate can find himself here so quickly, but a quick check of the archives finds that this has happened before for similar reasons. The editor demonstrates that he can admit to being in error one minute, then turn around to rehash the same error shortly after, followed by a long session of beating the dead horse. I am also aware of the possibility that the editor, being an artist himself, might be more emotionally involved in an article about an artist colony. I just wish it didn't have to come to this, but it's always possible that a trip to this forum might make the editor see that this way of doing things is uncollaborative, disruptive and harmful to the proceedings. StonyBrook (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• It looks to me as if Bus stop is too emotionally connected to the tragedy to make an objective assessment of its proper title on Wikipedia. And this is the wrong hill to die on if one was trying make sure the reader knew that the city of Oakland had some level of culpability for the fire. The right way is to emphasize text talking about the several missed opportunities for Oakland to shut down the Ghost Ship as unsafe. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Jasper Deng, you were in the wrong in the hatting. It is not proper to hat a single 138-word comment, simply because you disagree with it, don't like it, or think it is repetitive. It is certainly not proper to hat a single 138-word comment with the title "@Bus stop: it's been explained to you several times, your position doesn't have consensus, drop the WP:STICK and move on." You could have posted that as reply to him, but you can't hat his comment with that clearly biased statement. If Bus stop is violating talkpage guidelines, or being otherwise disruptive, then you can report him for that, but you cannot report him for justifiably un-hatting his own single 138-word comment. Hatting is used for lengthy tangential conversations which have become distracting in their length. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • His comment was distracting. At the least he should not have put it in the warehouse or not discussion. I didn't hat because I disagreed with him on the content issue; I hatted because he was, in my view at the time, disruptively attempting to further an already-rejected argument (which is obvious from a simple headcount after the initial debate) and distracting from the next point of discussion. Maybe my hatting was improper, but the rest of my actions and comments still stand. He abused rollback and won't drop the stick. This isn't the first time he's been told this either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I do not agree that use of rollback (even repeatedly) to unhat his comment which had clearly been hatted without warrant is or was in any way sanctionable. You were at fault. If he "won't drop the stick", that is another matter entirely and you can address that by responding to his talkpage comment to that effect. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Since edit warring with rollback is a bright-line abuse of the tool, I think otherwise so we're going to leave it at that. I'm not at fault for anything but hatting in lieu of replying directly. I brought it to his talk page as well. I don't perceive your involvement here as helpful here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• No comments on the merits or demerits of the substantive issue, but the linked contrib does look like a misuse of Rollback to me. See WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I don't see other examples of Rollback misuse in Bus stop's recent contribs using Rollback however, so I don't think revocation of Rollback is necessary here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bus stop appears to have disengaged from the particular conversation here, which I now appreciate. The one remaining issue for me: Personally I am still strongly in favor of having his rollback privileges revoked for what was a bright line abuse of it, and making him promise to not abuse rollback again. At the least, he needs to be formally warned that future misuse would lead to revocation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd be in favor of a formal warning (though not necessarily a "final warning") on the basis that it was clearly not a proper use of Rollback, but not in favor of revocation in light of the fact that there doesn't seem to be a pattern of misconduct with Rollback. I don't view the earlier reverts as being part of a pattern of misconduct which could support revocation of Rollback. Having made some boneheaded misclicks with Rollback myself in recent weeks, I could see the click on "rollback" instead of "undo" as a possible explanation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I un-hatted my comment 5 times. The first 4 un-hattings were accompanied by polite edit summaries. Only in the last instance did I simply use WP:ROLLBACK. I'm not in the habit of using rollback in interactions with other good-faith editors. Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Right. I just don't think you should have used Rollback there. Even if you could argue that "the reason for reverting is absolutely clear" in line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE #1, you were pretty clearly in a revert war. You're not supposed to use Rollback in pursuit of a revert war. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
          • You are right. It is a poor way of interacting with people. I apologize to Jasper Deng. Bus stop (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm glad we can all agree that the use of rollback was inappropriate. However, I feel that Jasper's hatting a comment from an editor with whom he was in a dispute was actually more problematic, as was the insistence on edit warring to keep the comment hatted. Frankly, Jasper seems way too offended over the misuse of rollback when Bus stop could legitimately be offended by Jasper's repeated hatting of his comment. It should be noted, again, that the RM has not yet been closed and that Bus stop was therefore not editing against consensus, even though a consensus may be emerging. In other words, Jasper did not have valid grounds upon which to hat the comment and the ensuing edit war, the misuse of rollback, and this thread would not have happened if he had not overstepped reasonable boundaries. Oh, by the way, while Bus stop's comment may have seemed distracting, as of yet nobody has actually responded to it aside from Jasper's ill-advised hatting and edit war. Lepricavark (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
              • If I've never used rollback inappropriately before, which I don't believe I have, can this be dropped? There is a level of persistence that I exceeded. I wanted to express my objection to acronyms. Believe it or not I actually regret not mentioning WP:COMMONNAME in that comment. We all should be thoroughly familiar with policies. But over-reliance on policy acronyms is not productive, in my opinion, in dialogue with editors who have been editing for ten-plus years. In my opinion the burden under such circumstances is in "translating" into one's own language the way in which one feels policy guidelines have bearing on the dispute under consideration. Sorry to sound off—I like engaging in real dialogue with those editors representing positions with which I disagree. I am sometimes flabbergasted by the barrage of acronyms that sometimes substitute for verbal interaction. I understand Jasper Deng's frustration. I apologize for rephrasing my argument ad nauseam. I was saying nothing new; I was just saying the same thing in a different way each time I rephrased it. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User: Artinpl1 also using IP 212.180.254.29 also known (as per self) as Marcin Latka

The user repeatedly has tried to add an otherwise unknown image uploaded, identified and sourced only by h-self as "Artinpl1" or "Marcin Latka" (same person as per self) to a number of Wikipedia articles in various languages (most reversed by me today). Here help offered by a a WP:3O volunteer was ignored, our reliable source requirement has been summarily disregarded and the talk culminated (just now) in more aggressiveness & ridicule plus the statement "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published.".

Further such activity this year (adding info with no source or h-self only as source) can be found here [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. It is hard to find good faith in this work. I have not looked through all the input by IP 212.180,254.29 but must assume that the rest of that too mainly is to promote the personal POV of "Artinpl1" a.k.a. "Marcin Latka" sourced only to Facebook or Flickr or Pinterest pages etc all created by that person. I've found no other kind of editing from the registered user or that IP.

Because of what looks to me like a deliberate hoax, or at least a very doggedly clung-to error, in the case of the Anna Vasa image, I believe all of this person's image identifications must be questioned, and that an administrator or two should try to curb this activity asap. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now also had reason to notify Commons administrators of this problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't this rationally be assumed to be the same person? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Block adjustment

2001:16a2:51b9:9400::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked today, but the ip has continued their edits with 2001:16A2:544E:3500:59BD:370F:7A80:66F (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Cards84664 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to be jumping around the /36, so I did a short range block on Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:5000::/36. If it keeps up, page protection might be a better solution (if possible). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I already put a request in for protection, thank you. Cards84664 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, does your block include the entire range that was first mentioned? Not complaining, just (almost) clueless about IPv6 rangeblocks. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. CIDR looks more confusing than it actually is. For IPv6, when the number after the slash (n) is divisible by 4, it matches the first n/4 hexadecimal digits in the IP address. So, a /36 will match the first 9 digits (2001:16a2:5xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx). A /64 would match the first 16 digits (2001:16a2:51b9:9400:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well now, if I can remember that, it will be easier :-) Thanks! I've unblocked the first range — that was my main reason for asking, since I wasn't going to unblock unless all of its addresses were covered by your block. I just wanted to avoid the confusion that might result from two rangeblocks applying to the same set of addresses simultaneously. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

78.16.84.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Classic trolling fitting in the Harveycarter-line on here, in a discussion from 2012, here, unsourced, here and [38] plus a few more inflammatory edits on the pages mentioned.

See also: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. The Banner talk 20:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The geolocation for this IP is all wrong for them to be HarveyCarter, unless they're on vacation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Favonian:, who is very familiar with HC's editing. Also note that The Banner filed an SPI here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Banner and Beyond My Ken: HC has certainly been known to express opinions similar to those of the IP, but they are not exactly uncommon in the Republic of Ireland. In consequence, I'm reluctant to block the IP at present. Should they "diversify" into some of the known obsessions, we can revisit the case. Favonian (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's first comment is a great example why we should oppose WMF's attempt to start hiding IP addresses for people editing without accounts. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm going to push back on that a bit, subject to a caveat. The caveat is that we don't know precisely how that proposal would be implemented, but I can't imagine a proposal getting community buy-in that doesn't include the ability for a substantial group of editors to have access to the underlying IP address. Would think any reasonable definition of that group would include Beyond My Ken, so this observation about location would've been possible under a proposal to make IP address is less visible. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Really? In the wake of FRAMGATE, you really think that?

The proposal specifically says that they don't have any idea at this point who -- if anybody!!! -- is going to have access to IP information, and therefore to geolocation data. That means that a rank-and-file editor such as myself will no longer be able to go to any admin and say "Here's this information: the edits are just like this person's previous ones and the IP geolocates to the same place." Instead, I'll have to file an SPI or bother an overworked CU (presuming they are the ones who will be able to see IP numbers and geolocation data). That's a recipe for more vandals and LTA's to slip through, as regular editors can no longer build up a mental database of the attributes connected to these people. The WMF obviously doesn't see that as a problem, but I do. Besides HC, there are at least four other vandals/socks/LTAs that I recognize from the combination of content & geolocation, and I suspect other editors recognize many more than I do.

And, no, I do not think that I, a non-admin, would ever be trusted to see IP numbers and therefore geolocation data. Given the WMF's positions, I'd say that only advanced permission holders, such as CUs, would be able to see it, but I doubt that they'd even bundle it with admin rights. Their thing is tightening up access to information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, At the present time, the IP address of non-logged in users is available to everyone, not just logged in users but the general public. I think there were good reasons to change who can addresses. (As an aside, I can attest having handled dozens of relevant OTRS requests, that many in the general public are stunned to realize there IP address is displayed. It doesn't help us that we often refer to this as anonymous — it's anything but)

There's a bit of a debate who should be able to see these IP addresses. I think I recall someone suggesting it ought to be restricted to CUs but I see this as unreasonable, and while I generally support the initiative, I do so on the presumption that they will settle on a sensible criteria. CU only is not a sensible criteria. If you don't mind, I'll use you as my canary in the mine. Any proposed criteria that would exclude you is too tight. Roughly speaking, I want all those editors who familiar with some of the problem editors over time to have such access for precisely the reasons illustrated by this example. We have far too many examples of long-term abusers, and I don't want to handcuff those who are willing to help whack the moles.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, says the canary <g>, your position is a reasoned one (which would almost certainly involve a new user right) but I am extremely pessimistic that your position is one that the WMF would ever accept. It's much more likely, in my opinion, that if this initiative goes forward to fruition, the class of editors who will be able to see IP numbers (and therefore geolocation information) will be as restrictive as they can make it. I say this from a sense of what their positions have been in the past - but we're both prognosticating, obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC

A discussion was begun at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Names and birth dates of non-notable children (again) that is constructed as an RfC and that people are responding to as an RfC, yet which has been designed a completely non-neutral manner. It is in contradiction of WP:RfC's requirement for a neutral opening statement and does not use the RfC template that announces the RfC to the relevant Projects. This appears to be an end-run around proper RfC process in order to limit discussion and achieve a biased outcome. I ask for admin inspection of this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not explicitly stated, nor formatted, as an RfC, so I don't believe it violates Wp:RfC. Nor does my reading of the initial post seem to be an attempt to change policy, merely to understand policy. Nor does it seem to be attempting to limit discussion, there are many more contributors there than in an average discussion. If you don't like the current discussion, I'd say open up an actual RfC that follows RfC guidelines in a new section on the page (or ask someone neutral to do it). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not uninvolved since I expressed an opinion there after visiting it for the mention here. But as I said there I don't think we need an RfC on the issue since it seems obvious that the RfC did not change policy, and so I think it's fair enough that one was not opened. Not all discussions need RfCs. However if any feels there is need for an RfC, they are free to open one. Until then, I think it would be obvious we will go by what our policies and guidelines actually say, not an RfC where the closing statement just says what to do in that one article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Bellbrook, Ohio

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

---

Bellbrook, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could I ask for an admin's eye on this page (which happens to be the hometown of the Dayton shooter), please? AIV is backlogged. General Ization ^Talk 23:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected by Scott Burley six minutes after you made this request. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

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

IP disruptive editing on day of the year pages

I don't know much about how this works, but I believe a single user is using multiple IP addresses to vandalize February 13, April 5, July 3, and July 9. Please look into this and address the situation. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 23:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the exact same edit is being made on the exact same page by similar IP addresses. I am not tech savvy enough to know what this means, but I need a sysop to look into it and stop this now. The edits are constant and I can't keep up. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is either a single discontinuous mobile range (thanks, Telstra), or the user is on the border between two ranges or something, and depends on which tower his phone feels like using that second. Anyway, the ranges are Special:Contributions/1.129.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/1.144.0.0/16. I did look over the entire assigned range, 1.128.0.0/11, but did not similar edits from any other portions of it. This is an extremely busy range, and represents at least several hundred thousand Australians, possibly millions if Telstra is distributing these very unevenly. Could block them, but since the interest seems to be so focused an edit filter to stop this range from editing day articles might work. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

​I'm not sure if you did anything yet, but I thought I'd let you know that it's still happening from a unique IP address. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I made a filter in log only mode to make sure it works. If it doesn't catch false positives, I'll enable it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by COI editor

Numerous issues. It's been dealt with on COIN, page has been appropriately dealt with. Very transparent COI by multiple SPAs. The last refuses to admit such behaviour, still insisting they are neutral, but clearly still fixated on the one and only topic they edit. Now close to 3RRing. Just not letting up. It's disruptive and a waste of everyone involved's time. User talk:Inca28a, latest reverts here, COI discussion here. I did a deep dive into the article and there have been 10 incarnations of COI-SPA editors with shared behaviour, it is a long-standing issue. It would probably help if this person was given a topic ban or other appropriate sanction to help keep the article independent - and this way they wouldn't be prevented from fulfilling their desire to help 'contribute with accurate information to Wikipedia, like everyone else'. Rayman60 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians,

I've responded to every threath on this editor and send all my information and details when was requested. This editor, clearly has a personal issue with the subject. Why he hasn't clarify that? Why am I the only one responding to your questions. The only thing I've been doing is adding sources, references, citations and only mentioned Fraser T Smith REAL work, nothing to do with promotion, advertising, et. like you mentioned. Now again, What's Rayman60 issue against Mr Fraser T Smith? Inca28a (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A consensus from established editors about this achingly transparent behaviour has long ago been reached. Almost immediately after this report was filed to help curb disruptive behaviour, an identical edit (third RR) came from an IP. Editor claims true independence and venerable desires but if the duck test was applied to this, the quacks would be deafening. This report is really just to request appropriate tools to limit this behaviour which is of detrimental benefit to the project.

• A topic ban on just this article and related (i.e. on an album by third party produced by subject) would allow editor to continue their quest to contribute to Wikipedia and would allow that article to remain truly independent. An employee of a hotel with no commercial connection to the article would have zero resistance to such a solution. Rayman60 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Inca28a is a single-purpose editor doing nothing but promoting (through adding unsourced claims and general name-dropping and puffery) Fraser T. Smith, a British "record producer, songwriter and musician" of dubious notability. So there is IMHO no doubt about it being either COI or paid editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"dubious notability" Wow. Clearly, you know nothing about the Music Industry. Are these the people moderating Wikipedia? Inca28a (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

People who are truly notable don't need the unsourced name-dropping and puffery you're repeatedly adding... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Inca28a: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with a narrow definition of notability. If truly notabile, you should have no trouble providing content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. With WP:BLP's sourcing is especially important.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: They know the rules here, since they, per WP:DUCK, have been using a string of single-purpose accounts here for at least six years now, all of them doing nothing but adding unsourced fancruft to this particular article: Inca28a, Codeetopixels, WikiContributer1, Lucyelizabeth71, Danyaiv, Saulfitton, Josh.myaudiotonic and possibly other less obvious ones, plus various IPs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 01:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"unsourced" when most of the source cited on FTS article and almost every article in Wikipedia comes from Wikipedia itself. You're defeating your own purpose here. Inca28a (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can't be used as references per Wikipedia's rules, so any attempt to use WP as reference/source is reverted on sight. You need reliable third-party sources for everything you add, as you have been told many times over the years. I strongly recommend you also read Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians and others in the field of music to see what is and isn't seen as notable here within that field. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP 85.175.194.16

This incredibly problematic IP has over 3 years of final warnings on their talk page, miraculously without ever being blocked for constantly adding unsourced genre's to album and band related articles (see here, here, here and here for some recent examples). No attempts have ever been made to communicate from their side so it seems fair to say they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Robvanvee 12:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee, a note from May 2017 on their talk page states that this is block evasion by Mrwallace05. Home Lander (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Home Lander, thanks, I see. Are you suggesting this should go to SPI? Robvanvee 15:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee, well, no, I don't see much point in that. But probably could be blocked for block evasion if behavioral evidence is strong enough (a casual glance shows interest in similar article types). Home Lander (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't be bothered to try match the accounts but just figured, given their editing history and talk page, user should be indeffed! Robvanvee 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on the IP's location, there is no block evasion, and IPs are never indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So what is the appropriate action for one to take? Should I not have brought it here? Robvanvee 04:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee - The report you made here was fine, and you did nothing wrong by starting a discussion regarding this IP user. Bbb23 was just providing you information about the IP and its range, and letting you know that we don't block IP addresses or ranges indefinitely. We may block them for quite some time (5+ years) if it's necessary, but we don't block them forever and with no expiration. That's all. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Oshwah. Robvanvee 08:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Robvanvee - You bet. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Coolbruh123

User:Coolbruh123 has a fairly long history of problematic edits, such as this one which was part of a pointy campaign related to K-pop singers. On that occasion I warned them about page blanking (side-note: Coolbruh123 has removed many warnings from many editors from their talk page, as they are entitled to). Earlier today they made this edit with a particularly nasty personal attack in the edit summary. I warned them about this, and received a personal attack in the edit summary [39] reverting my warning. This is not the first time they've resorted to incivility and personal attacks in edit summaries, eg [40], [41] and [42]. I'd appreciate an admin reviewing this. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Why spot only the bad sides of what I have done, and not acknowledged the useful stuff that I have done. They all said to discuss it in the talk page, yet no one discussed anything and had to do it their own ways when Chungha clearly rapped. Do they have anything against rappers? I don't get it. Personal attacks? Oh well Coolbruh123 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Generally AN/I isn't interested in the useful things an editor has done. And the linked edit summaries are definitely outside the bounds of appropriate comportment within Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Personal attacks? Oh well" is exactly the kind of attitude we don't need on this project. WP:NPA is a policy. It is not voluntary. If you can't respect it, you will be shown the door.--WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How not to get into trouble for edit summaries: Only describe and summarize the edit being made. Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That is certainly a standard to aspire to. But even when we fall short, we should avoid personal insults and acronyms such as "ffs". Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

this edit summary seems like it should be worthy of a block. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It is. @Coolbruh123: You need to apologise for that edit summary to all it applies to. You need to affirm that you will cease and desist from that sort of thing. Limited time offer before I block you.00:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Coolbruh123 is blocked for 24 hours for their use of an unacceptable edit summary here. I hope I'm not stepping on Dlohcierekim's toes here, but this user has had enough time to respond, and he/she should know better than to resort to uncivil comments and edit summaries like these... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. If disruption resumes post block we can escalate. What got me was the rhetorically dismissive shrug in this thread. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seemingly persistent disruptive user

Billiekhalidfan (talk · contribs · count)

I have no current issues with this user (I have in the past}. I just saw (on my watchlist) another warning given, didn't even read it. I just thought it's time to bring this to the community. All the evidence is listed on their talk, there's been many users trying to help and guide this "new comer" (including myself and a very good Admin). Anyway, here it is lets see where it goes, Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 18:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm one of the users who's given quite a few warnings and sent messages to BKF. I have tried explaining, which Ad Orientem also did, to slow down their rate of editing. They seem to be an editor who thinks that once somebody explains something to them about one article/example, that this must mean every example they can think of has to be changed to be the same. I know most folks at ANi don't care about content, so I'll spare most of what it was regarding, but for example, they claimed that because a remixed version of a song is on an album and a different version of this song was released separately as a single at the same time, that this single could not have been released in promotion of the album because a different version of the song is on the album. They were reverted and told to go to the talk page, which I and others have advised countless times. They then went to several other articles of similar cases where a song was not in the same version it was on the album and changed those too.

A lot of their edits seem to be made this way, regarding which single is from which album. They have commented on talk pages, but honestly not enough. I also believe this editor "competes" to have either the current or most edits on an article based on how many articles they make repeated incremental edits to and I really don't know why. I have not linked to diffs here because as FlightTime said, it's all on their talk page and I am not the only editor to raise this "competing for the current edit" concern with them. Also, their penchant for adding hatnotes often leads into bizarre territory like this, where they think someone would come to Wikipedia looking to buy diamonds and be typing in "buy me diamonds" to do it, and this hatnote on Norman Rockwell, where they think the title of Lana Del Rey's upcoming Norman Fucking Rockwell album may be confused with it when nobody has referred to Del Rey's album as just "Norman Rockwell". My patience with explaining things to this user and the fact that what goes for one example is not the same for all like it wears thinner by the day. Ad Orientem tried explaining things to this user (I believe via email), but they have chosen to disregard most, if not all, of that. Ss112 00:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• For context, I've had several interactions with BKF due to similar topics of interest. They definitely aren't a vandal, know how to use article talk pages and also provide well-written edit summaries. They are also patient and able to take 70% of the advice I have given them. The main issue is their need to change everything to what they think it is, without looking up what reliable sources have to say about it, along with WP:POINT-making behaviour. Another issue is adding useless hatnotes to articles, which would only make sense to them. BKF definitely does also have a problem regarding making bogus edits just to become the current last editor on pages they like. Which can be annoying regardless of not being a blatant policy violation. To sum it up, they're not all bad, but definitely not a net positive. I have a little sympathy for them as they joined WP a mere 4 months ago. I suggest WP:AAU as a solution, and oppose a block or penalty of any length as of now. If the disruption is still ongoing a month later, then this can be revisited. This AN discussion will probably make it clear that they need to calm down, and if not then the WP:ROPE scenario will play out.--NØ 07:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan - Can you respond to the statements made by MaranoFan above? I understand that you're still becoming established with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but we can't have repeated disruption occurring and at such a high rate if this is happening... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by User:Fæ

Fæ (talk · contribs · count)

This report concerns Fae's activities on a page regarding Jessica Yaniv and the subject's court case before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Fae does not want this page to exist and is in the midst of trying to have it deleted. Fae has also fought to keep properly sourced material out of the article, even to the extent of violating the 1RR sanction that they asked for in the first place.

But this concerns Fae's remark on the talk page for the article: "I'm actually starting to wonder if I should argue the case the other way, deliberately quote ten more shitty transphobic ranty sources, and get this article deleted as an attack page." [[43]]

And that is precisely what they did just thirty minutes later, adding statements to the effect that transgender people go against common sense, among other things. [[44]]. This is apparently an attempt to make good on their promise to add transphobic content to the article in order to have it deleted as an attack page. They began edit warring to keep this material in the article, but stopped after an admin pointed out that they violated the 1RR rule in the process.

Another editor pointed out that "This seems like editing to illustrate a point." [[45]] I noted that deliberately adding material to an article in order to bolster a deletion argument is disruptive. [[46]]

I asked if Fae would cease this kind of disruptive editing. [[47]]. They responded that they would not. [[48]]

I have no idea what else to do, aside from bring it to ANI for resolution. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Cosmic Sans: I'd appreciate a courtesy ping if I'm being quoted somewhere else. For the record: the page has been nominated for AFD (by me), and saying Fae is "trying to have it deleted" like that's some kind of crazy position is silly. I do think that Fae's adding that content was disruptive and WP:POINTy, but (to the extent that anyone cares about my opinion) I also think you were being pointy when you added it in the first place. You went from agreeing that a statement from a Human Rights Lawyer should be removed from the article, to adding tweet from Ricky Gervais a couple hours later. I find that pretty inexplicable. Nblund ^talk 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not inexplicable when you consider what I actually did and what the reasons were for that. I did not, as you say "add a tweet from Ricky Gervais." In a sentence regarding the international coverage of this case, which is rare for the BCHRT, it was noted that Ricky Gervais mentioned the matter and that had garnered media attention. His actual tweets were not included - if you'll check, I was using the same verbiage as the source. The purpose of this edit was to illustrate the international media attention this case has garnered, which is rare for a BCHRT matter. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) And I believe you're taking my comment about the human rights lawyer out of context, as well. At the time that I said that it should be removed, it was quite literally the only content under a heading called "Commentary." The section has developed since then, and it's now appropriate for inclusion when you look at the entire section. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've been watching this mostly from the sidelines and am not enamored with Fae's behavior in continuously ratcheting up the tension level on this and related pages. Fae has, in connection with this and another case (though Fae would deny the connection), recently been cautioned at WP:ARCA for very similar behavior ([49], [50]), again, ratcheting up the tension level and repeatedly seeking to impugn and discredit the motivations of good-faith discussion participants. I think there may be grounds for reconsidering whether Fae's editing in this topic area is a a net positive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• The material I added was providing context for the inclusion of Tucker Carlson as a commenting pundit on the BC Tribunal case. Carlson is exceptional famous for ranty diatribes and has promoted white supremacist views and homophobic views, and these are exceedingly well sourced. The context I added was Carlson's precise words, from the comment about the BC Tribunal case that had been added to the article by others, along with new sources. This is not excessive, it is providing context for the casual reader who may not know that Carlson is not an neutral journalist reporting the case. It remains odd that these tangential views are being argued by Cosmic Sans as being necessary, when they are at best tangential. However if they are to remain in the article on this case about a trans woman, then Carlson's actual comments being made should be explained, especially the misgendering of that trans woman he was talking about, and calling Canada "sick".

Per WP:BLP, tabloid journalism should not be in articles like this. If the argument put forward on the article talk page is accepted, that this is not tabloid journalism, then it is reasonable to give it context. To deny context because the context looks like tabloid journalism, but leaving the context out but still including the comment as notable, is a bizarre catch 22 argument.

By the way, this catches me as I go to bed, and I may not look at this tomorrow, being busy with building work. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, it strikes me that you're describing mainstream journalism as "tabloid journalism" merely because those mainstream articles refer to information from a tabloid source. We don't call that an unreliable source, we call that a secondary source. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, I think you should try and read the talk page to get a better understanding of the valid points Fae has brought up about the news coverage of this story, which indeed seems to be just another sensationalist thing to sell headlines with. This is just pure bullshit; no matter what reputation the Toronto Sun might have, I cannot accept a paper that prints that kind of (transphobic) trash as a reliable source for a BLP. In fact, we should not even accept what it claims are basic facts. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That may well be true, or there may be alternative sources that can be used, but all of this is obscured by Fae's battleground, combative misconduct, on this article and on others. That is the problem being addressed by this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess one clarification we might agree on, is whether editors can call objectively transphobic abuse in a source that another editor is adding to a BLP, "transphobic", or whether that word, even if accurate is always off limits. In most other places, it is okay to say that misgendering a trans woman is transphobic language or simply transphobic, because it meets the accepted definition. In the past on Wikimedia projects I have used "t-word" rather than writing "transphobic" because that word was so inflammatory even if accurate. If folks want to try doing that, let's all make an agreement to limit our language and we can be consistent about it. --Fæ (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Transphobic" is a great word. Describes exactly what it says on the tin. We shouldn't hesitate to call out transphobia where we encounter it (I don't think you and I have any disagreement on that).

But this isn't a story about transphobia. Where Jessica Yaniv has experienced transphobia, that's regrettable but it's not the main story. The story here is whether it's possible or acceptable for transgender women to behave "improperly" to the BC HRT (and the BC HRT has used just that term), or similarly if transgender women can behave in a manner towards waxing salons which has been variously questioned as improper, inappropriate, racist or profiteering. Being transgender doesn't excuse such behaviours! On that point, I think we do start to diverge. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh yes, let's be absolutely, 100% clear: If there is transphobia, whether in articlespace or talk space, we should not be shy about calling it out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• So don't accept it. If that's a trash source, then we just don't use it. End of story. A problem with this incident is that it has played directly into the TERF and reactionary right narrative. This is the "female predator"(Fiona Robertson's term) in the girl's locker room that they warned us of. So unsurprisingly, the right-wing and trash press have been quicker to cover it than anything more balanced. But that's not to say that there's no better sourcing available to us. We can use that, and it's enough to work with. This complaint of poor sources has pervaded the AfD out of all proportion to the actual problem it presents to us. We ignore the dross and work with the better stuff alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment I've also watched Fae's editing behavior from the side. Though I don't have difs handy, I've seem plenty of battleground behavior, edit warring (as recently as today), bludgeoning, unwarranted accusations of bad faith editing. Fae seems to have an extremely pointy POV that is being pushed at the expense of the quality of the articles and the civility of the talk page interactions. I would suggest considering reinstating Fae's previous Tban lifted in 2016 [[51]] Springee (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I should note that Fae called me "abusive and transphobic" in an edit summary today [[52]] because I added the following sentence to the article: "Yaniv's case has garnered international attention, and was featured in a segment on Tucker Carlson's television show on Fox News." I think this is excessive to say the least. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Fae called the content "abusive" and "transphobic", but I would argue the context suggests it was intended to be a personal attack, and in any event making those kinds of edit summaries rather than making a straightforward referral to the talk page without further editorialization is just another sign of Fae ratcheting up the tension levels to an intolerable level in order to drive away people who don't wish to be associated with edits that anybody calls transphobic. I can see many people whose on-wiki personas are known elsewhere or who edit under their real names being seriously chilled by such conduct simply out of a desire to protect their own livelihoods. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess you could read it two ways. For various personal reasons I was a little upset by the implication. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand, I would've been fuming myself to be told I was doing something that was transphobic and abusive. Like I said, it's yet another example of Fae ratcheting up the tension level. Andy Dingley lists a number of other examples below. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I find this reading bizarre as I just cannot read it differently to the way I intended. Sorry if you read it as an accusation about you, but my words in the edit comment are intended as factual statements about the content, not about any Wikipedian. --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the intent, it's a very hostile way of editing and I think you've shown a pattern of hostile editing throughout this article and other articles. I understand you were topic banned for this sort of thing back in 2016. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

My worry would be that a taunting edit summary like that is less about driving editors away (anyone still here is thick skinned) but rather an attempt to provoke them into a harsh reaction in turn. Because Fae is excellent at then playing the victim. And woe betide anyone who might act in a way which could then be presented as the faintest suspicion of transphobia! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fae's behaviour has been way past acceptable across all of these Jessica Yaniv articles and pages: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Meghan Murphy, Talk:TERF, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate et al. Their editing within mainspace is domineering and bullying, their attitude to other editors in talk: spaces is dismissive and abusive, with scant regard for basic accuracy, let alone any acceptance that any other editor might have a valid viewpoint. This is full-on righting-of-great-wrongs and to hell with everyone else.

As a quick example from many, four days ago they posted this: [53] " no matter how much Andy Dingley loves it, presumably because it includes some bizarre and unsupported unverified hearsay about child abuse, it is still transphobic crap," to which I replied " you are the only person here who has mentioned child abuse. Now stop assigning motives to other editors, and throwing loaded terms into the debate which no-one else has used, or else you're going to be doing it at ANI." There has been no such change in attitude, and so yes, we find ourselves at ANI.

Naturally everyone involved has had a dire warning of GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions dumped on their talk page. Today Fae went to 3RR to remove something from the article (wasn't there already a discretionary sanction in place?) and then imposed a unilateral 1RR across the article Talk:Jessica_Yaniv_waxing_case#One_revert_rule_is_in_place, just to make sure that their now "correct" version would stick. Fae just will not accept that the same rules bind all of us, Fae included.

I would certainly support reinstatement of a TBAN. Or maybe Fae just complying with the basic policies which apply to all of us regardless, would be a good start? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A topic ban on transsexualism? Jonathunder (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a ban on edits dealing with gender and gender identity. Fae would probably agree that one could be placed as a discretionary sanction under the GamerGate DS regime—though I don't think said regime is so broad, and would therefore prefer we did so through a proper community-based discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I understand there's a TBAN from 2016 which has been suspended? Maybe that would be suitable for reinstatement. But Fae seems unable to proceed in this area without behaving inappropriately towards other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's not suspended anymore, but completely vacated. The Committee would need to reinstate it via an ARCA, and my current opinion of Committee procedures with regard to their strange interpretation of finality is such that I don't think that should be done except in a new case request. That's not to say I think a new case request should be brought. If a sanction is warranted here, and I'm not sure that one is, it's entirely possible to bring it via community discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so it's not my call about 1RR.

I am happy to comply with all basic policies as you suggest. Feel free to highlight any policy violations you perceive about my edits on my talk page and we can discuss. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if I'm not mistaken you, Andy Dingley, advocated using a blatantly crappy source for a BLP, so that thing about "basic policies" applies to you also. By the way, you made a completely ridiculous accusation, that I somehow implied you were someone's sock? This was a dumb comment. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, Drmies, this problem could have been prevented had Fae's combative misconduct not taken place in the article. By continually ratcheting up the tension level, Fae has created a hostile editing environment in which mistakes like you describe are not only more likely, but are bound to be made. Many editors, myself included, will not edit in this topic area because it is quite simply radioactive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is at ANI already. So you do not make hand-waving accusations at other editors like that, you provide diffs at the same time. No ifs, no buts, so I've struck it until you specify just what source and when I was "advocating". And in particular, you don't pull this "Oh, I might have been mistaken all along, I did mention it, don'tcha know?" crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah Andy Dingley: you referenced or linked to claims that Yaniv was a "sexual predator" five different times (4 in that deletion discussion alone): 1,2, 3, 4, 5. One of those is a blog post from Miranda Yardley that is rife with BLP violations. I agree that some of Fae's rhetoric has been over the top, but I think that's an odd instance to point to, and it clearly wasn't out of the blue. Nblund ^talk 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

One of those is a blog post from Miranda Yardley that is rife with BLP violations. Point of clarification: Does WP:BLP apply to the content in sources? I don't think so. It can be perfectly fine to cite sources containing things that we would never say in Wikipedia's voice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• No-one, certainly not me, is going to use Miranda Yardley as a source anywhere near BLPRS. But I'd also point out that Fiona Robertson, the National Women's and Equalities Convener for the Scottish National Party used the term "female predator", and we can source that through the Glasgow Herald (which still isn't a tabloid). Now, whether we need to is a good question - it has little to do with waxing, but that's one of the reasons why I advocate widening the scope of this article to Jessica Yaniv more broadly, at which point these many accusations and the widespread allegation of inappropriate and predatory behaviour towards young girls will come up again. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, in which of those diffs did I "advocate[d] using a blatantly crappy source"? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Or did you mean the Vancouver Sun, which you have classed as a tabloid on the grounds that its writers also wrote for tabloid papers? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a reference to your comment here where you said calling Yaniv a "sexual predator" would be "on the table" on the basis of a Miranda Yardley blog post. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I took it to mean you thought that this sort of commentary might be acceptable on a BLP. In any case: you referenced those claims a whole lot, and presumably that's what Fae was bringing up. I'm not saying it warrants sanction, but I also don't think Fae's comment is way off base, taken in context. Nblund ^talk 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• "I think". Well, sorry, but I'm looking for Drmies to back up their accusation here, as they're the one who made it.

As I have never made any secret of, I detest (and pity) Miranda Yardley. My comment in that diff was "and yes, it's a chilly day in Hell today, as I'm agreeing with Miranda Yardley over anything" because it's the only time I've ever cited Yardley as a commentator on anything. You might note that I've cited Fiona Robertson far more, and have every intention to carry on doing so. My only reason for including Yardley was to illustrate just how far this condemnation of Yaniv has spread, and how many independent commentators (and Yardley is at least prominent, even if she appalls me and I dread to think of a situation which would accept her as RS). I did not "reference those claims a lot", I have (until now) made only one reference to her (my shower isn't big enough for the scrubbing down I needed afterwards). Never for one moment would I suggest using her as a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You've referenced "those claims" (sexual predation) 3 times in this thread alone. Aside from just reflecting inexcusably bad judgement, it looks pretty clear to me that you're calling for Fae to be sanctioned for correctly noting that you want to bring allegations of child abuse to main space. Of all the legitimate grievances you could point to, this is just asinine. Nblund ^talk 01:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How about this, I have spent too much time on the BC Tribunal case article, getting trapped in circular debate, and some of the content does make me sad, including the anti-trans material and abuse claims that I have felt obliged to examine in detail, stuff I would never, ever, seek out normally as you cannot "unsee" it. I am clearly arguing for one point of view to the exclusion of others, my intent being to address an imbalance of discussion, but even starting out with good intentions, that's not a proper way for any Wikipedian to think about articles in the long term as we individually should be concerned with all the evidence.

I'm removing it from my watchlist, and I'll no longer participate in the associated AfD or any other discussions about it. I'll trust the community to stick to the high requirement of BLPRS to sort it out.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not good enough. It's a great (and well-known) strategy to avoid ANI by either not engaging with it, or walking away from a particular battle. But that's not enough. You've gone too far. Other editors need and deserve protection from your combative editing like this. Just saying "I'm walking away and I won't do it again (but only this one page!)" doesn't cut it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not as much in agreement with Andy that it's not good enough, but I think it's the wrong answer to the wrong problem. Your involvement in the Yanav article isn't the issue, and I think that your own viewpoints should be valued. The problem is that the combativeness, wikilawyering, tension, bad faith, etc. undermine both the credibility of those opinions and the overall value of those contributions. People aren't apt to listen, and in fact might fight back for the sake of fighting back, under such circumstances. That said I can respect your decision to back out of that article and AfD, and wish you nothing but the best. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Andy, If you examine my contributions in the last 12 months, I think only this article and discussions about it, are what you have a specific problem with. If you look at my user page I have created several articles about notable trans women and non binary people, none is subject to debate anything like this article. Rather than some general topic area, this case is an extremely unusual set of sources and extra-ordinary content to deal with as a community. Were the plaintiff in the case not subject to serious accusations, being the matter under discussion at BLP/N, then I doubt that the two of us would be in any protracted dispute about content and principles. The fact is that you have firmly agreed with me on some of these issues relating to the respectful treatment of trans women more generally, let's not fail to recognize that fundamentally we agree on these topics, it is just this case that is by its nature a bad one for me personally to take a stand on. --Fæ (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your contributions for the last 12 months over those last twelve months. My silence, or at least not going to ANI, should not be taken to indicate that I am particularly happy with the style in which they were carried out. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I've never been your enemy, nor actually an adversary when it comes to content and improvement. We've both been part of many policy related discussions on Commons as well as tricky deletions. Feel free to raise issues on my talk page rather than building cases for dispute resolution. We've both been around this project a long time and understand how most things can work out or where the systematic holes are than we try to keep walking around. I did read your comments, and did consider the points you were making about this case. Just because we do not agree, does not mean that you cannot make me doubt my case and change it or do an about face and agree with you. You probably have seen me doing exactly that in our discussions.

You can normally tell because some smart person will point me out as being a hypocrite. --Fæ (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Good example of how Wikipedia isn't good for covering current events based just on recent news, especially when it comes to BLPs. How about a great big trouting for anyone who added an opinion piece or, worse yet, extracted the most scandalous bits about a living person, a double-big-extra-spicy trouting for anyone who reinstated that material when reverted, and then we just delete this and move on until there is evidence of lasting significance in reliable sources (not tabloids, not opinion columns, not blogs, etc.)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The story is a year or two old already - and growing, what with the arrest. In Canada it's (AFAIK) "the biggest BC HRT case yet" and there was something about them running out of space in the tribunal's room for the numbers of public spectators wanting to get in. We already have coverage in three broadsheets. Although there is a lot of trash coverage, and the right-wing reactionary press love this story because it plays to their narrative so well, there's plenty more besides. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• On the issue of the Toronto Sun As I've mentioned a couple of times at the AfD and at BLP/N, they are most certainly not a reliable source for anything. If postmedia has something reliable to publish, they do so in the Vancouver Sun or the National Post, and even those publications are dubious on politically sensitive issues in an election year. The vast majority of postmedia's local papers (such as the PEI Guardian, also cited at AfD) are just reprinters of the postmedia wire service. And the Toronto Sun is perhaps the worst publication on the postmedia roster, a tabloid both in format and content. It is about as reliable for BLPs as the Daily Mail. Simonm223 (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Bullying warning

The biggest thing I have seen is Fæ attempting to litigate opposing points of view out of discussion on talk pages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate and when rebuked there, doubling down on the same tactic at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Removal of apparently libellous hearsay and links to apparently libellous hearsay on talk pages relating to the "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons" tribunal case.

In the light of Fae asking @ Arbitration that transphobic statements be grounds for discretionary sanctions, I find this edit to be particularly chilling. Fae considers believing that "woman" means only "cis woman" to be a very basic and offensive example of a transphobic (in any sense) statement, so I must conclude one that is grounds for discretionary sanctions. This has a negative impact on the ability to advance or even discuss relevant points of view, in light of the Wikilawyering, victimhood, drama, cries of transphobia, cries for censorship, cries of things being too disturbing or offensive to even read, etc. I get the impression that if Fae had their way, the wording of the leads of Woman and Trans woman would not even be open to discussion at all.

For someone with any aversion to conflict the prospect of dealing with Fae may be daunting. For this reason I propose Fae being warned against bullying other editors, particularly in gender-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not chilling to raise an Arbcom request to discuss whether or not discretionary sanctions can or should be clarified more clearly to address the specific use of Wikipedia by Wikipedians to generally espouse their own views which measurably and factually attack the existence or rights of other Wikipedians. You are free to contribute factual statements to the GamerGate Arbcom request, but if the request were "chilling" then Arbcom members would be the first to state that and reject the request. I have no problem with contributors producing sources and explaining for the improvement of Wikipedia articles that it is a political lobbying view that only cis women are women, which by definition is the view that trans women are not women. It is also perfectly factually correct to discuss whether in Wikipedia's voice we can or should accurately describe those views which deny the rights of trans women, or deny them the ability to exist, as quite literally being transphobic views.

However two other things are true:

1. Currently in "Wikipedia's voice" we state as fact "trans women are women". Consequently that is how "structurally" Wikipedia is built, in the nature of acceptable labels, categories, article titles or the respectful description of living trans women. If you wish to change that, then that is itself a policy discussion I fully encourage you to have, in the correct venue which might actually be the Arbcom request that I raised.
2. All editors are free to use Wikipedia's talk pages to improve articles, including the frank but good faith discussion of what is commonly called racist, homophobic or transphobic views published in reliable sources that clearly can improve articles. Naturally the precise same policies ensure than all editors are free to use Wikipedia's talk pages to include the frank but good faith discussion of anti-racist, pro-gay or pro-trans equality views published in reliable sources for the purpose of article improvement. Editors are not free to publish their personal views about minority groups which breach our common understanding of WP:5P4 and it is likely to be a breach of other policies, some of which is discussed by others in the current Arbcom clarification request and existing motions and amends.

Nowhere have I said that articles like Woman or Trans woman would cease being open to discussion. What I do advocate is a better understanding of how policy can better apply to those discussions, without needing to hamper the purpose of those discussions.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

P.s. after reflection, I realised that I do not understand why you used the term "litigate". I believe you are using it as a synonym for something like "argue" or "debate", could you clarify what you meant? It has a meaning that I think is unintentional. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I had taken "litigate" to mean that you had escalated a discussion from article talk: or AfD to the sort of pages which Must Not Be Named and are only addressed by their ALLCAPS acronyms. The implication being that this is a form of meta-discussion about talk: pages, and where the stakes were raised: in particular where sanctions against your opponent editors (and I use that term deliberately) were more easily available.

If that was indeed DIYeditor's intended use of the term, then I saw it as particularly apposite in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Meh: I think Fae has been a bit of a bully, but I don't think it merits this particular sanction. I'm not sure any sanction is really necessary at this point. I'm more willing to let the discussion in this thread serve as notice that there are genuine concerns with Fae's behavior that are not mere posturing in the midst of an ongoing content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Mendaliv, I second your "meh". I suppose I can see a reason for some of the concerns, but I do think it's overblown and doesn't merit sanctions. It's been said that Fae sometimes uses the wrong method to achieve the right goal, but I don't think this case is the best example of that. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Bullying How much bullying merits sanctioning? How much do we tolerate? Why do we tolerate it at all?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer topic ban I see no ownership by Fae of their negative behaviors. Instead they are simply saying they will take a break from this dispute with no aknowledgement of wrong doing. Given the number of times they have recently been to ANI and their sanction history I have no doubt they will be back. I find the accusations/implications that others are transphobic or that their actions are such to be especially chilling. I think a topic ban makes more sense than a warning as the number of previous ANIs and talk page discussions (including those on their own talk page) should have been the needed warning. Do keep in mind that Fae is a very experienced editor and absolutely should know better. Springee (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This post raises some very good points that I'll have to think about and come back to. I might be swayed to support a tban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an odd statement, I positively acknowledge wrongdoing above as part of withdrawing from and unwatching the discussions about the highly controversial article and discussions that are associated with it, my sanction history is literally ancient as the record shows, and I have made no accusations or implications that any Wikipedian is transphobic.

  Per DIYeditor's opening statement in this thread, "the ability to advance or even discuss relevant points of view" must include the ability for editors to discuss frankly the actions of the sockpuppet master that has successfully disrupted these transgender articles, and created this one using a sockpuppet, and more generally for LGBT+ identified people to frankly discuss sources which do make transphobic attacks and do objectively contain transphobic material, including stating that reasoning frankly in edit comments when removing material per WP:BRD. These should not automatically be read as personal allegations against other editors that may add those sources to articles, possibly without realising exactly what the issues are with those sources. Perhaps I more fully and wholeheartedly agree with DIYeditor on these principles than they realised. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Prefer topic ban the chilling behavior is unacceptable and there is no reason to believe that it will go away on its own. At some point, enough bullying is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• No Regardless of how it currently stands, this article was created as an attack page by a blocked editor who clearly wants to use Wikipedia to spread humiliating and salacious claims about trans people. It doesn't represent a "legitimate viewpoint", it represents an unquestionably bad faith effort to doxx someone. Editorial recklessness has sort of rendered the request to oversight this stuff moot at this point, but Fae is correct to think a lot of that material could normally just be oversighted, and I think admins need to be taking a firmer hand with addressing rumor-mongering about trans people. Fae bludgeoned the issue, and now they've said they'll stop. Nblund ^talk 12:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  The origin of one of the articles/talk pages in question doesn't excuse the behavior nor is this isolated behavior. Springee (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  The arbitration request wasn't about the article, it seemed to be about shutting another editor down, and it is just a pattern of behavior. The article is not great I agree. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Please add your views to the open Arbcom clarification request. If you can spell out why the request looks like it is was created for "shutting another editor down", that can legitimately inform Arbcom's decision, and if proven Arbcom can recommend actions, if needed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose While I have myself been frustrated with Fæ, who I feel may be something of their own worst enemy in this particularly contentious area, it's deeply inappropriate to characterize their actions as bullying. Rather, they've been incensed by the way that Wikipedia is being used to draw negative attention to a private individual who happened to attract the ire of one of Canada's most powerful media conglomerates. While their actions at WP:BLP/N may have been somewhat counterproductive, they were certainly not bullying anyone, rather they were speaking with genuine passion about something where Wikipedia should be showing considerably more restraint than it does. And frankly, considering how frequently Wikipedia allows BLP notability to be decided by the causes célèbres of a small number of influential media players, often in blatant contravention of WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENTCRIT, I don't see their distress here as misplaced. While I hope Fæ will listen to some of the advice that supportive editors including myself and Nblund have offered them, I don't think this is appropriate for WP:AN/I at this time. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I am not intimately familiar with the history of Fæ aside from a very few encounters. I noticed that I felt a little bit "avoidant" of them. I noticed other people are complaining here about their behavior. My main issue was about how they seemed to try to shut down Pyxis Solitary (on BLP/N and Arbitration not in the waxing article). It's true that the waxing article might be better off deleted but that is tangential to some of the discussions that occurred. I certainly have no reason to support a TBan; I was trying to offer a solution. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Simonm223, thank you--this is valid. One thing, though: I appreciate your "causes célèbres", though I wonder if the plural in English needs that final -s. I'll investigate. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think that bullying is appropriate even if it's in the furtherance of righting great wrongs. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  I can't speak for Simonm223, but I believe this isn't bullying. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"causes célèbres" is the accepted plural

Indeed, Simonm223 et aliae ( [sic]), "causes célèbres" seems to be the accepted plural in English of Cause célèbre, though it strike me as counter-intuitive. See, for instance, "inspector general", another French loan--"general" is, as we all know, an adjective in the French phrase, and consequently not pluralized in English. Thus, "inspectors general". The case for "causes célèbres" must therefore be different; I propose that it is possibly true that the entire plural was loaned from French along with the singular. It seems there was a wave of French publications [note: I will supply URLs to Google Books and JSTOR; full citations on request, for $20 per citation, to be PayPalled to my Cayman Islands account) in the 1700s, on this topic and with the "causes célèbres" spelling: [54], [55], [56]. Google Books provides a number of hits for English titles with that spelling in the 1800s: [57], [58], etc. What this needs is obviously a full bibliographic search in both languages with a timeline, and then an investigation into the connections--institutional, educational, authorial, etc., before my point can stand successfully: that such publications in French helped introduce this uncommon plural into English. Who were these English authors? What did they read? Why this pseudonym, "Civilian"? I fear the only person who can solve this is Uncle G. As for English usage, the American Bar Association Journal ran a series of articles in the 1920s called "SOME AMERICAN CAUSES CELEBRES" (articles which should be used in our article on the phrase): [59], [60], [61], [62]; in addition, a review from 1930 in the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology uses it as well ([63]), so I think we can say confidently that at least in American-English legal usage "causes célèbres" is well-established, and for historians this seems to be the case as well. I encourage Wiktionary editors to either include a link to this note or to supply a better one for their entry, but that's by-the-by. At the risk of overdoing the by-and-bys, there is much work to be done still, first, and second, this is one of the occasions where the online dictionaries I looked at were correct, though they never indicated why. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both this and the topic-ban. While Fæ can clearly be rough to deal with and could stand to tone down their rhetoric sometimes, the problems they're dealing with are real - as illustrated by the extremely low quality of sourcing others were trying to add to this article, something that honestly ought to be a more serious concern on a WP:BLP and seems like it might almost require a WP:BOOMERANG. But I particularly and strenuously disagree with the argument that Fae should be sanctioned for believing "woman" means only "cis woman" to be a very basic and offensive example of a transphobic (in any sense) statement; that is a common enough perspective that it is at least reasonable for an editor to hold that view and to advocate for policy or sanctions based on it. WP:CIVIL obviously bans transphobia; and it seems to me, at least, that denying that trans women are women is textbook transphobia and, therefore, sanctionable, especially if repeated over and over when interacting with a user who has asked you to stop. We can cover such views, and cite them to sources, and even edit alongside people who hold them, without having talkpages become forums to advance them, so the argument that it would have a chilling effect rings hollow - we wouldn't allow someone to argue on talk that homosexuality is a mere "lifestyle choice", for instance, or to present scientific racism as fact, yet we still have articles on those topics (and, indeed, editors who doubtless hold those views); this seems comparable to me. "I'm just stating what I believe" isn't an excuse for incivility, and Wikipedia isn't a random forum for people to spout off their views; if you know your views will be seen as uncivil and could drive off editors, keep a lid on it, take it to Facebook, Reddit, Twitter or wherever when you want to mouth off, and focus on improving articles via sources instead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok I think I see what you are saying about incivility, so this (the content that sparked the arbitration request AFAIK) may be a prohibited opinion? (specifically "trans ideology", no need to address it here) I didn't realize there was some nuance to the question but I can see now why there is. Of all the many opinions allowed on Wikipedia on user pages, that statement is possibly not allowed on an article talk page... On its own I agree there is no problem with advocating that such be prohibited, or that people not be allowed to say anything like that they believe trans women aren't women. It is a strong stance to take but I can see why that is a valid policy decision and valid thing to argue for. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it's borderline; it's the sort of thing that would depend on if they have a history of it and how they've responded to people asking them to tone it down. Talking about "trans ideology" is definitely stridently political to the point where it makes me wince - I would put it in a basket eg. consistently referring to an article's subject as a member of the "Democrat Party" or, perhaps more closely, saying that an article's subject isn't homophobic, they just oppose the "gay agenda" as if that's unambiguously a thing. It's a sweeping insult against people on the other side of the debate (and, in this case, to trans editors) and a bit of a chest-pounding announcement of the editor's own views. Everyone who edits controversial topics has a viewpoint on them, but we need to try and tone down the sniping and chest-pounding to edit constructively - and, to me, talking "trans ideology" is definitely sniping rather than constructive editing. Also, like "Democrat Party", it's a bit of a dogwhistle that people who aren't involved in the topic area aren't likely to catch. I don't think that just letting that kind of thing slip in occasionally requires sanctions or anything, but editors should stop when it's pointed out; repeatedly going off about "trans ideology" or the "gay agenda" or the like implies a degree of either unwillingness to abide by WP:CIVIL or even outright WP:NOTHERE. Talk pages aren't there for people to yelp snarlwords like that at each other; doing it over and over leads to a hostile editing environment. (And, conversely - do you think it would be appropriate for an editor to constantly talk about the "gay agenda" as if that was unambiguously a thing? If not, what's different about this?) --Aquillion (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • "Gay agenda" definitely has some sinister and uncivil connotations in the parlance of most people who use the term and it is inappropriate like you say. I'm all for people keeping their opinions to themselves on Wikipedia, especially when they might make others uncomfortable, so maybe I should have given it more thought. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/out-and-elected/1995/david-cicilline - "I was thinking of supporting your campaign," the man--a senior citizen and devout Catholic--told Cicilline. "But first, I want to know what your gay agenda is."
          "That's easy," Cicilline responded. "My gay agenda is for government reform, improving neighborhoods, and strengthening schools." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I was not going to involve myself in this ANI, but now that you linked my comment in the Meghan Murphy talk page I need to bring Fae's comment to your attention: "If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics." It's only fair that you read my response in BLP/N regarding the terminology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyxis Solitary (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I further disagree that this is really bullying. At beast, I think Fæ's behavior can be called over-zealous to a point where they are seeing potential threats to transgenders (a subject they are clearly passionate about) under every rock. Fæ's absolutely right that WP cannot a place to allow editors to freely insult and demean trans individuals - both off-wiki personalities and on-wiki editors. But at the same time, to develop articles, we may need to in good faith discussion external views that are hostile to trans individuals or the group as a whole. That discussion is all within policy as long it is it about improving article-space. Unfortunately, because Fæ seems to forget AGF and takes that discussion out of context, as to explain the discussion of these external views is hostile to views of trans individuals. WP is a "respectful space" (borrowing EdChem's term from the related AE discussion) and we will not tolerate editors insulting trans individuals, but this doesn't mean that we will not discuss material that may be insulting to trans individuals as long as it has a purpose. Fæ's recent actions seem to forget this, to the point where their talk page editing has become disruptive. Fæ may have focused on a few editors that have been more vocal in the matter, but I would not call that bullying. --Masem (t) 14:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• topic ban Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Info The Arbcom "GamerGate" clarification request has been mentioned here several times, for those that want to read the clarification request with respect to the use by Wikipedians of transgender related phrases like "transgender ideology", "trans identified male" or calling a trans woman a "biological male" as Wikipedia accepted statements of fact, outside of discussions about source material that makes those statements, can find the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate. Diverse statements that can inform that discussion are welcome. --Fæ (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• The topic ban is warranted. Fae's PoV about gender-related subjects has turned into WP:BATTLEGROUND too many times. Who among you that wants to exculpate his behavior has been subjected to:
  • "Just to help everyone understand the wider pattern here, @Pyxis Solitary:, have you blogged or posted about this deletion discussion anywhere?" F1
  • "Could you address the serious question of canvassing please, have you been blogging about this topic off-wiki?" F2
  • "Could you state clearly that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes?" F3
  • Please state unambiguously that Colin M has been the only person you have emailed about this Noticeboard discussion or related votes. If you obfuscate further, or continue just replying by throwing the chaff of counter accusations in the air, then everyone can and should draw the conclusion that you have canvassed other people, per the definition agreed in WP:STEALTH." F4
  • "this has all been one-sided for those that are lobbying exclusively to the benefit of political radicals against transgender equality, like Meghan Murphy. Thanks so much. If you have received any canvassing emails, or have been in coordination with anyone off-wiki about these articles or these consensus processes, please make a full statement."F5
  This behavior needs to end. It doesn't matter how many years someone has been an editor, it doesn't matter if someone has made thousands of edits, and it doesn't matter if someone is a former admin -- no one has the right to threaten other editors or interrogate them. I am not going to fill this discussion with links to all the times that Fae has belittled editors when they push back. I know editors who stay away from editing gender-related articles when they see that Fae is involved in them. A slap on the wrist is not enough. Not any more. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  You might have been wise to leave this particular text-wall out of this discussion. Your passionate defense of the term "trans ideology" - which seems at casual inspection a transphobic dogwhistle - certainly helps to contextualize that Fæ has not been alone in the process of escalation at BLP/N - and comments like that can be seen as having unnecessarily inflamed the situation. And while Fæ would be well advised to read WP:BAIT - it certainly doesn't support a t-ban to show us the exact bait that was used. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe you're not following the discussion closely, but it was another editor that linked to my comment in the Murphy talk page, and it was that editor that stated "trans ideology" in this discussion. You're dead wrong if you think that I don't have a right to respond to any comment wherein I have been referred to by name or by linking to a comment I made. "Trans ideology" is the same as "gender identity ideology", they're interchangeable terms, and both have been discussed in many articles, including academic. As an ideology it falls under identity politics. Lesbian feminism is lesbian ideology. We are not forbidden from mentioning the existence of an ideology. Masem said it best in "Clarification request: GamerGate": "talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden." M. You really think I spend my time in talk pages itching for Fae to come along and start a confrontation? Insinuating that I baited anyone, particularly Fae, is bullshit and a personal attack. The only one blowing a dog whistle here is you. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. Similar points were made in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_GamerGate, by yourself, as well as on BLP/N and probably other places I have forgotten. Canvassing has been shown to be a matter of fact. It was widely condemned, including by those that were unnecessarily pinged and emailed. Asking reasonable questions to shine a light on blatant use of canvassing, with a background of sockpuppetry that was actively manipulating article content and discussions solely about transgender issues in order to deliberately bias that content and consensus processes, is fair. As it was clear what the evidence of canvassing was, those questions should be allowed without being re-pitched as personal attacks, or as if it there might not have been unquestionable evidence of the canvassing and checkuser confirmation of sockpuppetry. In the particular case of Meghan Murphy, it was confirmed by statements from the sockpuppet master, and recently by an administrator, that Meghan Murphy was emailing Wikipedians about the BLP about themselves. This is not a controversial statement. It is not an attack against you. it has always clearly been about establishing the facts and finding ways of counteracting the stealth canvassing, including the known targeted off-wiki abuse against Wikipedians clearly intended to drive them off improving transgender related articles, and the effects of sockpuppetry and possible meat puppetry.

  As I have stated repeatedly, I am not your enemy. I have even reverted targeted abuse against yourself and warned the account doing it. I agree with you, the topic is a battleground due to the actions of many parties, including hostile off-wiki and stealth manipulation of consensus processes. It would be more beneficial to focus on attempts to reduce the likelihood of over-inflaming discussion by better policies, this is precisely what I am attempting to do with the Arbcom clarification request for this topic. A valid attempt at improving consensus is the opposite of creating a battle ground, it is not bullying anyone, and you or anyone else can contribute to that process of improving the environment we spend our volunteer time in for the benefit of open knowledge.

  (ec) The person raising this thread has changed their own views during these discussions, an excellent example of the important of being open minded to evidence and challenging views. Why not let the stick drop? We can focus on how Wikipedians can work collegiately when the topic is as inflammatory as someone banned from Twitter for "hateful speech", and us Wikipedians need to find a way of ensuring a balanced encyclopaedic article that correctly covers that material, without being lost in circular and polarized debate about whether "word" means "word", or what we think might be in other contributor's heads. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I did not say anything in my "Clarification request: GamerGate" comment about canvassing. As for the rest of your wordiness, I've learned by now that you're a spigot that needs to have the last drop. So ... the end. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on transgender related articles. I do not see a genuine apology or regret from them, and I think they know they are in trouble and are trying to avoid real sanctions. The discussions I was going to link to have all been linked to above so I won't repeat that here, but every interaction I have had with this editor, and every discussion I have seen them involved in, they have taken a belligerent and bullying tone. This has had a chilling effect on other editors; I know this for a fact. They clearly are intent on Wikipedia supporting their POV and to hell with anyone or any source who disagrees. They are far too emotionally invested in this subject as an activist and attempting to "right great wrongs." They should know better by now. I think they need more than a slap on the wrist. They have harassed me on my talk page here accusing me of being a sock puppet, and here less than an hour later giving me official alerts about things they already told me about previously. Here they falsely accused me of having an "anti-queer politics spin". -Crossroads- (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, or at least from gender-identity topics. This sort of behavior has been going on for years across the entire topic area (not just the trans subtopic), and is what got that editor in trouble in the first place. The TB was lifted provisionally, under the explicit condition that the behavior not resume, but Fæ went right back to it, and focuses on the same kind of disruptive, activistic misuse of WP to advance a sociopolitical viewpoint. The viewpoint being popular among editors is not a justification. 107.204.239.99 (talk) [SMcCandlish via public WiFi] 16:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reinstate Fæ's topic ban from human sexuality, broadly construed, the user is so hot on the topic that they seem unable to step back, also they are creating a lot of disruption in the topic area, seems it was a mistake for whoever removed it, was arbcom as far as I recall. I don't usually comment to support editing restrictions, I prefer to work it out but this was one that should never have been lifted. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Header

Why is the noticeboard header collapsing? Could it please be restored to what it's been for many years now? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - You can uncollapse it by clicking "show". Michepman (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, of course, that's obvious, but I'd prefer not to have to do that, as I use the header with great frequency, and having to unhide it every time is a nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reply - I agree. I wonder if it is a configurable setting. I will see if I can figure out a way to request that it be set to be uncollapsed by default. Michepman (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Think I got it, although I have no idea why it changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting on/fixing that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Which template was changed in the header exactly? Did you find it? Can you link me to it so I can take a look? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. I had a similar issue yesterday, on my User:Diannaa/Useful stuff, which uses template:navbox. I added a | state = expanded to force it to expand. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa! It looks like Template:Navbox just calls #invoke:Navbox, which is the Lua module here. These pages haven't been recently edited, though... Hmm..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Like Diannaa, I simply added "state=expanded" to the headers on AN and AN/I. I did not look very deeply into why that change was necessary, but it seemed to me that the default state of all navboxes got changed from "expanded" to "collapsed", as a number of single navboxes on articles which I looked at yesterday, which I'm pretty sure had been expanded before, were collapsed when I looked at them, with no state specified in the call. That does not seem to be the case today, so I assume the default got restored. I have no idea where that change would have been made, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - I appreciate the additional information and details. I'm just curious to exactly what template or module was changed, when, by whom, and why... as well as if the change followed any kind of consensus, discussion, or prior approval. I definitely want to know what happened and make sure that no tomfooleries are afoot... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the history of both Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header -- the two files I added "state=expanded" to -- and there had been no recent edits, which is why I think that the change occurred upstream somewhere, an area that is literally beyond my ken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

DOI bot without WEBSITE and URL: bug or feature?

The bot that's been taking out URLs and replacing them with DOIs is creating a situation whereby a person who "hovers" over the citation's DOI gets no clue as to the citation source. In an article I had previously worked on, the bot left an empty URL= which resulted in: "Missing or empty |url= (help)"(in red). Am I the only one who sees this as someone who takes one's car keys to prevent them from losing the keys (and deposits them in a central lost-and-found). Pi314m (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

DOI bot hasn't edited since 2008. What bot are you having trouble with, and have you reported it to the bot operator? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm echoing Mendaliv's question above. Are you perhaps talking about another user? Which one? Can you link us to it so that we can take a look? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I think I found it. Pi314m is concerned about this edit by Citation bot. Specifically, a {{cite journal}} template in the "Further reading" section of Tymnet had both the DOI parameter filled, and the URL parameter just linked to the DOI (though through doi.acm.org rather than doi.org). That is pretty duplicative. Anyway, I don't think this requires administrative intervention. Best would be to discuss it with the operator of Citation bot first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m - Can you confirm that this edit is what you're trying to tell us about here? Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Funny: I guessed differently. I thought it might have been this edit to Business continuity planning by a user (Nemo bis) who's username might, at first glance, have been mistaken for a bot. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocking

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

---

Please, block my account! --الرشيد (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 14:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Potentially WP:CIR editor editing sports related pages

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

---

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

The above user (new account, first edit from July 31st) has been constantly doing a lot of edits which go against either Wikiproject guidelines or MOS guidelines, or just keeps changing piped links. He has been warned on talk page (by 3 editors, including myself), but so far he has failed to respond and the problematic edits (which require clean-up afterwards) are continuing. I am beginning to have suspicions that this is a case of WP:CIR (particularly "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus."). Is there ground for any action here? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: @Jellyman: Pinging if you wish to add your opinions here. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Final warned.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I hate to not AGF, but I see brief bursts off high speed edits each day. I didn't see any constructive. I think we need to just indef them now and save ourselves trouble later.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think some of their edits are valid (removing unnecessary Caps in section headings / hyphenated phrases), but most are in contravention of MOS guidelines (either WP ones such as quotes, or project ones). I've tried leaving those thay were ok, but many edits do both, which I reverted. They have not left any edit summaries, or replied to talk page messages, so it is difficult to AGF. Spike 'em (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Unsourced Content

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

---

user:201.62.51.36 just hopped over to user:179.189.94.54 to continue adding unsourced content after her final warning. I already confirmed that both IP addresses lead back to the exact same location. CLCStudent (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Page protected, SP, Oshwah.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim beat me to the punch. I also temporarily blocked both reported IP users for disruptive editing. Sorry for overwriting the protection you applied. I applied it just as you were... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Great minds and all-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Eyes on a couple of closed AfDs with issues?

• Central Park Rangers FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Park Rangers FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoboken FC 1912 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. These AfDs were NAC closed as redirects on July 18 but have yet to be removed from CAT:AFD. The CPR FC redirect is showing up in WP:BADAFD as linking to a closed AFD even though there does not appear to be such a link in the current version of the redirect. (The HFC 1912 redirect dropped off WP:BADAFD by itself on July 27 despite there having been no edits to that redirect since the AfD closed.) Can an admin please look at these and do whatever cleanup is necessary? Also curious to know if there's something I'm missing with regard to being able to find and resolve the problem myself without calling in admin intervention. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 18:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Long term CIR/DE issues from IP editor

• 100.12.255.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP address is the current address Staten Island user who has a record of WP:DE and breaking tables (WP:CIR). Please see User:EvergreenFir/socks#Just_Fix_It for known past IP addresses and blocks. While this user's tone has changed from yelling at others to fix their mistake to asking nicely, they still lack the competence to edit tables. As this is not "typical" vandalism, I thought ANI would be the appropriate place to bring it up. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)