Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

SPA and WP:NOTHERE for 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests related article

• 65.60.163.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• XXn00b21Xx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2019 Yuen Long attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• POV pushing edit alone (adding suspect and personal opinion etc) from the ip:
  • Special:Diff/907296674
  • Special:Diff/907456413
  • Special:Diff/908500836
  • Special:Diff/908826462
  • Special:Diff/909571253
  • Special:Diff/910456136
• SPA edits by XXn00b21Xx
  • Special:Diff/907348869

Sorry to raise the issue here. I tried to AGF to explain to the ip that wikipedia is a tertiary source , but it seem the ip fails to understand WP:OR, WP:V and may be synthesis of source for over 2 months.

For example, see his edit in 2019 Yuen Long attack and Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack, they (he/she) keep trying to act as a meatsock to adding triad wording into the infobox, which is an accusation to the suspect (See Special:Diff/908826462), which clearly WP:BLP related issue and violation. Instead of get to the point, they tried to justify themselves by saying This is a clear example of coordinated political violence, as reported [sic] by numerous reputable media outlets, which clearly in the reliable sources are reporting accusations and opinions of academician and politician, which totally not WP:DUE to include in infobox.

While in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, they insist there is a need to add Junius Ho into the infobox, with the following reason in talk: Okay, bottom line is that Junius Ho is a relatively powerful and influential public political figure, holding political office, and a staunch supporter of certain pro-establishment positions. He is very outspoken, makes frequent inflammatory statements which receive media attention and circulate widely, and folks of various positions also strongly react to and are encouraged by his perspectives., which clearly his own analysis of source and making their own conclusion that Junius Ho is the leader that merit to add to infobox. As well as refuse to provide the real citation to explicitly state "Junius Ho is a leader of pro-government/pro-extradition bill politician " or other similar wording. To be fair, the ip is just defending that POV, but not the initial editor who add it to the infobox. User:Hoising, an active editor in zh-wiki (and may be en-wiki) did it instead. (Special:Diff/907378181)

There are other POV pushing attempt from the ip for the article, also without any real citation to justify , such as Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Adding section for Predominant Slogans, which clearly the thread starter and the ip failed to grasp the idea of WP:V. Such as the ip replied Reporting about the culture of an historical event is not propaganda, it is documenting history!, but this response without really responding how many external source are there to justify the inclusion of other minor slogans of the rally/protest/demonstration.

So, base on the edit record, is it due to warrant a topic ban or just temp block for the ip?

Lastly, the registered account made similar edit. Just file as may be other new user have the same POV, or logout edit account. But the account is stale. Matthew hk (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• There are 5 citations, including quality newspapers" for the "Spiritual Leader"and the statement above is invalid.hoising (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

It never a WP:DUE condition when only tabloid newspaper call Ho as "Spiritual Leader", "Godfather" or some sort. Those citation in Chinese, some of them does not even mean that, most of them merely implied that Ho had a connection to the suspected triad gang in 2019 Yuen Long attack. It certainly a POV pushing to put him in infobox. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

For the so-called citation as a leader of triad, i had move to Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests# Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict under sub-section "Discussion" for anyone interested to read it and make conclusion it is supporting the statement/claim or not . Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, just to point out, at that time the Chinese wikipedia page on the topic included similar mentions of the triad. So why not POV pushing considered there too? (For reference, see brief discussion here: User_talk:65.60.163.223#August_2019) Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Members above said that South China Morning Post is a tabloid. I feel a deep regret. The exact word on the papers is 'Hero'. Also, if you believe 'Hero of Triads' is a proper title, you can use it. Thanks. hoising (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Hoising: You are literally shown you are POV pushing to synthesises the source to call Ho as as "spiritual leader of triad gang" when Ho was just made a serious political scandal of contacting triad in the mid of the attack. Matthew hk (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, feel free to cite the exact SCMP article that the journalist called Ho is a "hero of triad" instead of reporting Ho's opinion on the white mob action. Matthew hk (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that difference between Triads' Hero and Hero of Triads is a grammar issue, and is not about the fact.- hoising (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your confirmation that SCMP had described Mr Ho as Triads' Hero. - hoising (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For admin, here is how he reflecting other people's comment and refuse to give out his real citation instead of his synthesises . Matthew hk (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I quoted from the SCMP, but some members prefer coping exact wording. - hoising (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Your source is not a SCMP source. (Special:Diff/907378144). And it is synthesises or even original research to conclude Ho as a leader, when that source only stated [Ho] giving them a thumbs-up, and saying “thanks for your hard work!” Matthew hk (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It is because you selected one of my edits only. You can find more citations after the 907378144. --hoising (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You can just defence yourself by digging up your exact SCMP citation and make direct quote to prove you are not synthesising source. Instead of bluffing you have one. Matthew hk (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted for the non-Chinese speakers in the room that "hero" has somewhat different connotations in Chinese than it does in English. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

1) Okay, hello everyone. So, in regards to the 2019 Yuen Long attack article ... edits were made to the infobox and reverted and then we had a very thorough conversation on the talk page, here:

Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack § Infobox and suspects

I had never tried to repeatedly over time edit the infobox or engage in an edit war ... we had a long discussion about the particulars, and I now understand the rules about how sensitive the infobox content is due to living persons and their reputations being involved. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

2) In regards to a proposal for adding information about some of the protest slogans: I was not the one who first proposed this, but only agreed with it (as have a few others as well). We currently have a section on the Adapted songs ... so it's not a far stretch to also have information about some of the slogans, especially given some media have reported on this topic. There was a "Popular culture" section on the article but it was deleted, so I proposed that this info go to a new main article about the art and music and creative aspects of the protests, similar to the page about Art of the Umbrella Movement ... my proposal for this was recently "archived" on the talk page. Anyhow, few others were interested in starting such a page and so it never happened, as I was not going to push that forward on my own. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

3) Okay, lastly, in regards to some of the edit diffs linked above: Yes, I had updated the title of a section in the article from "2019 Yuen Long violence" to "Yuen Long pro-Beijing attacks" ... this did not seem contentious at the time. The original sub-section title seemed vague and lacking specificity ... like, "who was harmed? who was doing the harm?" etc. So I thought it should be more clear and understandable to the reader, not to mention actually accurate based on media reports of suspected pro-Beijing organized crime elements that were allegedly involved. 65.60.163.223 (talk)

Regarding this did not seem contentious at the time — oh? I actually seem to recall you edit warring against multiple editors to retain that change of yours. El_C 07:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no discussion on the specific topic and no consensus reached at that time ... 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

4) And finally: the editor who started this thread mentioned a handful of edits (and talk page conversations) that they disagreed with, but what about all of the many, many, many, productive and constructive edits that I have been making over the course of several months? I am not here to vandalise or engage in edit wars etc. etc. ... sure, I am interested in the topic and enjoy contributing, but that's about it and that's where it stands from my perspective. Thanks. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@65.60.163.223: For "terrorist attack" in case you don't know at that time, 2019 Yuen Long attack was removed from List of terrorist incidents in July 2019 and a bold move backed by Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack#"Terrorist Attack"? already taken. The thread did not discuss the wording in lede or infobox, but by common sense it had a consensus it is not due to use the "terrorist attack" wording anywhere but "Reaction" section. Matthew hk (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is, i keep telling wikipedia content on article namespace required to be based on secondary source. We can have a brief opinion on those source are reliable or able to use or not (so WP:RSN existed), but not synthesise them as well as pure personal opinion that did not backed by another citation at all. Matthew hk (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. : ) I am still trying to wrap my mind around some of the nuances and complexities of Wikipedian culture. 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly anything to do with Hong Kong needs additional admin oversight at the moment. There are... problems... all over there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Very much in agreement about that. : ) 65.60.163.223 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, instead of stick to the citation and may be registered an account and built reputation, it is not constructive to reply Actually, we SPA are obviously CIA!! ; ) in Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests#Rfc on including Junius Ho in the infobox of this article which use Template:Infobox civil conflict. Matthew hk (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That was a small joke to help lighten the mood! Please make special note of the winking and smiling emoticon that I had originally included in that brief remark. Cheers! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, don't worry! I won't be able to edit for much longer because the summer break is over! No more free time starting very very soon!

Keep up the great work everyone!! Adieu mes amis! 65.60.163.223 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• A little late to the party I should note that while it's evident that 65.60.163.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a POV - I don't believe they're here to be a POV pusher per say. Their recent participation on article talk has shown a willingness to learn and attempts to understand both Wikipedia's culture and some of the historical context surrounding current events in Hong Kong that they were evidently unaware of. As such, I'd be inclined, notwithstanding their suggestion they may soon be suffering a bout of WP:ANIFLU to extend them some WP:ROPE at this juncture. I am less inclined to extend that courtesy to Hoising whose actions have been somewhat more problematic WRT POV pushing. In particular, it concerns me the extent to which they've undertaken exploiting the slight connotational differences between 英雄 and "hero" to try and shift POV about Junius Ho, especially considering the risks to WP:BLPCRIME that affiliating a politician who has not faced charges to a criminal network represents. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Eta: I just realized I have commented here before. But, after some significant involvement in these pages, the comment immediately above does represent my opinion at this juncture. An additional note: with regard to media sources on China affairs, SCMP is kind of the opposite of a tabloid. It has historically shown neither the explicit pro-Beijing bias of publications like the People's Daily nor the explicit anti-Beijing bias of Ming Pao or the BBC. As such, I would generally treat SCMP as being a reliable source, my well-known aversion to newsmedia sourcing notwithstanding. However, as with any media source, it's important that when we express the editorial opinion of a writer in SCMP, we attribute that opinion to the author, noting their outlet, and ensure that it adheres to WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

What i mean was, there are tabloid news reporting in Chinese/Cantonese that accusing Ho as the mastermind of the incident, which such conspiracy theory cannot be added to the wikipedia as serious WP:BLP violation. While, SCMP, it is not my opinion but someone else that they had changed their political spectrum just like the take over of Sing Tao many years ago. But even SCMP, it did not have so called news article to say Ho is the "spiritual leader", hero or other wording, but reporting the accusation and fact that Ho had met the white mob suspects on that attack. As well as just like many pro-government politicians , voiced his opinions on protesters/so called rioters. Matthew hk (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• And the articles had escalated to SPA farms. Ltyl, another SPA, started the article Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and then start edit warring with other. See Special:Diff/913559919. I endorsed with 65.60.163.223's edit Special:Diff/913614187, as it is a wide spread accusation that documented in the news report. Matthew hk (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

For context of Ltyl as SPA of another fraction, see also the Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests/Archive 5#Sources for the alleged violence/vandalism/abuses by protesters or their sympathisers and then the act of WP:POVFORK to create Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests which was bold move and then nominated for Afd. See the wall of text at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Matthew hk (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me just point out that the WP:POVFORK charge is just a POV. No verdict in yet. Ltyl (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I lost track of all the changes. You have produced only two changes in your evidence. What I see is: I wrote the article; somebody changed it; I reverted it. That's all. That's hardly edit warring. If you think I'm missing something, please produce more evidence. What you have done at the moment is more like harassment, using nuisance litigation to stop others to make legitimate contributions Ltyl (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you like to explain as a new user, all of your contributions are related to 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests? Matthew hk (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't need to explain myself to you really... Are you saying SPAs are not allowed on WP? It suffices to say, I'm here to improve the articles, and I believe I have shown good faith in the discussions to reach consensus. You can show me evidence to prove the otherwise. Ltyl (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Reputation and controversies of Hong Kong Police
• List of early 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of July 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of August 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of September 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
  • This is getting to be a bit excessive. GMG^talk 16:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I admitted the article size of the original article had some problem , but after the split it may be cause even more problems. Matthew hk (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Chronic disruptive editing

• Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anthony22 regularly makes numerous stylistic and 'grammatical' edits to pages to negative effect. There are editors who, from time to time, examine his edits. When this is done, his edits are most often reverted. Individual 'diffs' aren't the best tool to see his behavior. The 100 most recent edits of the O.J. Simpson murder case are illustrative. Anthony22 made numerous, rapid, stylistic edits to the page. This is too many edits in too little time to be a careful reading and improvement. It's compulsive behavior—very unproductive compulsive behavior. Please notice that NEDOCHAN took the time to revert many of them. Next, please refer to this conversation about Anthony22 on NEDOCHAN's Talk page: it's an example of how Anthony22's compulsive editing wastes other editors' time. Finally, please examine Anthony22's editing history. This behavior has been going on for years. He uses up useful editors' time, and Wikpedia's 'oxygen.' IMO, this needs to stop. Tapered (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

For clarity we are talking about these 43 edits in a row (and one revert from another editor). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221:My bad. Can I remove this section? Tapered (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you want it archived? I wasn't challenging you on anything. Just making it easy for others to look at precisely the edits that triggered this report. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

For interested parties, User talk:Anthony22 provides insight into the years-long history of this issue. I won't try to summarize that here, but I'll say that I'm one of perhaps eight experienced editors who have made similar complaints over the years. I strongly feel that the community should divert Anthony22 into areas better suited to his skill set, since he refuses to make that transition voluntarily. He is a net negative in the copy editing area. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I also concur with the word "compulsive" here. I have refrained from using it, but it clearly applies in my opinion and has long been how I interpreted Anthony22's editing behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not one of the eight, but I gave Anthony22 a warning six weeks ago, but felt I was being harsh as they are obviously only trying to do good, albeit sometimes not very successfully. It's difficult to know what's best when you see an editor who makes so many mistakes with such good intentions. For now, I've left a note on their talkpage trying to explain the problem they created on the Charles Lindbergh article, and maybe I'll get a positive response. Is anyone here able to explain patiently to them why 43 consecutive edits to O. J. Simpson murder case causes problems for other editors? --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Tapered—please pick one diff and bring it to our attention. I would be interested to see a diff of an edit by Anthony22 that you find particularly problematic. I am not accepting of the notion that "[i]ndividual 'diffs' aren't the best tool to see his behavior." Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing is Bus Stop that this has been going on for years. What about this as an eg? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=911471345

A cursory look through Anthony's edit history, the JFK page, Marilyn Monroe, his talk page, will show that it's a chronic issue of pointless wordsmithing and /or plain errors being introduced en masse to featured articles. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN—I agree that the provided edit did not improve the sentence that it was intended to improve but in my evaluation that misstep was minor. This is the sort of thing that can be addressed by dialogue rather than by steps taken to forcibly curtail their editing ability. For instance I would simply present the argument on their Talk page that the word "both" is an important part of that sentence and therefore in my opinion warrants placement at the beginning of the sentence. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, the point people are making here is that it is a chronic, long-term issue, and that previous attempts to address this have failed. Therefore addressing one specific issue with one specific edit will be unhelpful, and is completely beside the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, are you even aware of what you just did? You were "not accepting of the notion" of a pattern, insisting on a single diff, which you then rejected as a minor thing, which was of course true because it was a single diff. You engineered the conversation to ensure your predetermined desired outcome. Don't do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say a purpose of diffs is to allow onlookers to evaluate a case. We don't want a case to be decided on the basis of a handful of complainants. I think we should want wider input and opinions. I'd say those alleging a problematic editing pattern should provide a sufficient number of diffs to convince onlookers that the alleged problem exists, be that 10 diffs or 20 diffs or more. It should be easy for onlookers to evaluate the alleged problem. The present suggestion is that an onlooker such as myself should peruse a range of edits. I don't think that is acceptable. Diffs should be specific. At the top of this page I find "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hang on a second. You asked the editors who are a bit fed up with this editor's continual, time-consuming and bad editing to come up with an example. I did so and your response was based on its being one example. Mandruss is absolutely right. Not a good response.

As said earlier, if you'd like lots of examples just spend 5 minutes reviewing his edits and talk page. Seems a bit pointless asking us to post links. Take a look. Form your opinion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN—the complaint was brought by Tapered. I do not think the burden is on me to figure out what "Tapered" is complaining about. I looked at a dozen edits by "Anthony22". It is not super-obvious to me that there is a problem. "Tapered" is writing "The 100 most recent edits of the O.J. Simpson murder case are illustrative." Are every one of those problematic? Probably not. How am I supposed to know which ones "Tapered" thinks are problematic and which ones "Tapered" thinks are OK? And why should I go through 100 edits? Wouldn't the burden logically be on the one filing the complaint to highlight specific edits deemed to be problematic? I'm trying to give "Anthony22" a fair break. We need evidence. It should be specific, in the form of specific diffs. Please present as many as necessary to illustrate your point. It says at the top of this page "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Now your story changes. You said right here please pick one diff and bring it to our attention. That was done per your request, and now it's a sufficient number of diffs to convince onlookers that the alleged problem exists. Could you please decide on a position and stop moving goalposts?

I have already said that insight is available on Anthony22's talk page; have you bothered to take a fair look at that already-existent source of information for your answers? I doubt that meeting your demand for more diffs would satisfy you; if there were a hundred diffs you would simply argue endlessly about whether this or that diff is really problematic and to what degree. The important point is that more than a handful of established editors, acting independently and in good faith, have perceived a problem with Anthony22's copy editing spanning a period of years, and that the multiple complaints have yielded no improvement. That means something. This is not a courtroom, and you are not a defense attorney. You are not making a constructive contribution to this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221—sorry to bother you. I'm sure you have other things to do. If User:Tapered doesn't return to the conversation in a reasonable amount of time I think this section should be closed. Their last statement was "Can I remove this section?" You asked them if they wanted it archived, and they didn't respond. Bus stop (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that isn't how this works. The interaction you refer to occurred when those two editors were the only ones in the discussion, before four other editors had joined it. You don't get to try to defeat a complaint by shutting down the discussion on some contrived technicality, and it shows bad faith to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I get what is concerning about the 43 edits referred to in the original post. Aside from the annoyance of doing it as 43 tiny edits, it amounts to using more words to convey the same amount of information. While I have an opinion on that, it's a style issue, and does not obviously require administrative attention. I assume the complaint is that Anthony22 A) does this sort of thing habitually; B) is resistant to reasonable efforts to curb it; and C) should expect this type of edit-storm to be controversial, whether because he is frequently reverted, or because there is a clear consensus against his style. It also did not escape notice that many of the warnings on Anthony22's talk page regarded more than mere style issues. But to be honest, I didn't feel like trawling through Anthony22's mess of a talk page looking for solid evidence. I didn't feel like looking into each complaint to see exactly what the context was. If someone else goes to the bother of making a list of diffs/incidents alleging to demonstrate an intractable behavioral problem, I'll take a look. Though I'll agree with Bus stop that if no such thing appears to be forthcoming, and no one else appears interested in acting on this complaint, it should be closed soon. I'd say a day, two days max. Nothing stopping Tapered or someone else from coming back with a better complaint in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The only collection of diffs strong enough to even stand a chance of a ban from copy editing would be a comprehensive collection showing pretty much every bad edit for the past 5 years. I don't think any sane editor is going to devote the required 10+ hours tediously amassing such a collection, especially given the lack of any guarantee that their effort wouldn't be totally wasted. That fairly sums up the chronic dysfunction of this page, and I ask myself why I bothered. But I've reduced the frequency of that mistake to about once a year, so that's progress. I'm out. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Still not sure how to proceed with this and why there is such reluctance simply to look at the edit history of the editor. That, coupled with a quick read of the talk page, shows the situation clearly. Anyway- here is a recent selection- these are just the most recent. A particularly strong example is the Prostitution page, where Anthony has decided to add 'call girl, street walker, whore, harlot' one-by-one, seemingly just thinking up words. He also states models and prostitutes are the same, with a nifty bit of OR. And then throws in 'youth' as an essential component of being a sex worker. He then goes on to ignore an infobox and attest to the legality of a school shooting. Anyway here goes:1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

Is nine consecutive pointless and/or offensive edits in the last 24 hrs enough, or shall I just post separate links to the 1000s of others to demonstrate what was originally termed 'chronic disruptive editing'? And if you say that we should talk to the editor about it, look at his talk page. We have.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Look at how many of the edits I have highlighted have already been reverted and perhaps consider that the complaint that Anthony22 is wasting time might have some validity. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mandruss is correct, and this is a problem. I've seen other editors who have poor writing skills yet paradoxically believe the opposite, and try to "help" Wikipedia by copyediting articles. No one edit is particularly disruptive, and they seem to mean well, yet pretty much every edit they make makes Wikipedia slightly worse. I'm not sure what should be done here; banning seems heavy-handed but some sort of restriction on copyediting would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is User:Tapered? This thread can be closed and reopened (after taking a week breather from it) by any editor so inclined. User:Tapered is not taking responsibility for what they've initiated. They said "Can I remove this section?"[1] Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop. Please note that although Tapered began the process they did so in collaboration with me. I have provided an additional 9 diffs above to go with the first. Could you at least look at those?NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, please review the post to you by Mandruss of 01:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC). User:Tapered is not required here, the section doesn't need to be closed or reopened, and no "week breather" is required. Your own contributions here are moving from unhelpful to disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I think what Bus Stop is trying to say is that Tapered seems to want to withdraw his allegation against Anthony, and if he does then it doesn’t make sense to continue digging around for ways to attack this user unless there’s a specific issue that someone else independently of Tapered has with him.

That being said, I don’t think there’s a need for that. Tapered’s last comment was ambiguous and there’s nothing wrong with hashing out the issue while we are here. My current concern is less about the quality of the edits and more about the lack of talk page interaction before running to ANI. Has anyone tried to ask this user why he isn’t discussing these issues given how frequently they crop up? If he isn’t willing to talk to other users, that could be a competence issue by itself, even if it’s not intentionally disruptive. Michepman (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. And the evidence is on the user's talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the editor has been invited twice over the last 3 days to join this conversation, but hasn't, despite continuing to edit. A short block may be required to get the editor's attention, and to have them focus on the issues people are raising on the editor's talk page (and here). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I’ll admit, I find the user’s talk page to be intricate and not easy to decipher, so I will take your word for it that he has been contacted and has not agreed to discuss this with anyone. Since he seems to be ignoring the WP:ANI thread and talk page contents, I don’t think there are too many other avenues left to get his attention. Some of his contributions that I’ve reviewed might actually be good work, but others are not and his unwillingness to engage in discussion is a problem across the board. I don’t know if there’s a rule that says someone can be blocked for refusing to collaborate and leaving messes for other editors. I assume that there is, but I don’t know the specifics. Either way, his behavior doesn’t seem reasonable. Michepman (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

correction, I just reviewed the time stamps on his talk page. It looks like his last edit was actually an hour *before* he was notified of the thread. If that’s the case, it isn’t fair for me to conclude that he won’t participate in this discussion since he hasn’t had a chance to do so. I think we should wait before doing anything else to give him a chance to stop by and give his side of the story. Michepman (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Michepman: Anthony22 was first informed of this thread on 04:30, 25 August 2019. He's made dozens of edits since then; he even made an edit to his Talk: page after the notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, and I see Bus stop has now coached him on how to placate the people here, and get through this process unscathed. No advice on how to improve his editing, mind you, just advice on how to "beat the rap". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to this message left on his talk page by User:Jayjg today, linking to this thread in particular. The message above was from two days ago and was not really specific compared to the one left by User:Jayjg today. I'm assuming good faith that he didn't see the first message from two days ago (or else didn't understand what it meant), and I'll also assume good faith that User:Bus stop is trying to encourage Anthony to engage with the community.

I think it is important for Anthony to engage if he is planning to edit here, especially if he is going to edit in hot button areas like the Marjory Stoneman high school shooting. An editor that actively refuses to talk to anyone else even when making controversial changes is going to create a lot of work for others to clean up. Just my 2 cents... Michepman (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If you were familiar with the long history here, you would know that Anythony22's tendency is to run from criticism. On 13 June 2018, after a week of complaints on his talk page from six (6) experienced editors, he started a wikibreak that lasted until 1 February 2019. He really, really hates engaging with other editors, for example avoiding article talk whenever possible (0.7% of his edits have been in the Talk namespace). His comfort zone is in being left alone to work in isolation instead of as part of the editing community. To any reasonable observer, this is a far more likely explanation than any other for his absence in this discussion, and it's one of the things that might already be understood if people took the time to look at the history on his talk page. Hence my word "insight".

This points to another serious flaw in the current ANI system – the implicit assumption that editors completely new to the issue can be better judges of it than those who have dealt with it firsthand for years, based on the little bits of "evidence" that the latter have time to produce, simply because the former frequent ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, it took me a bit to unravel what you said about a serious flaw in ANI, but I think I understand now, and if I do, I think I disagree somewhat. I do not think that there is an "implicit assumption" that AN/I regulars are better equipped to understand and deal with a situation than the people who have experienced it first hand are - although that may appear to be the case. What I believe you're actually seeing is that in a system which functions via WP:CONSENSUS, if the people on the front lines (who know the problems in the long term and at first hand) don't show up to participate in the discussion, then the participants are naturally going to be in significant part ANI regulars. There's no "assumption" that the regulars are smarter or better disposed to decide on the situation, they're merely the people who are there, and consensus has to be based on what the participants in the discussion say.

The solution to that flaw is that more people who are aware of the situation from experience need to get over whatever feelings they have about posting on the "dramah boards" and get involved in discussions they are knowledgeable about. That can only improve the quality of the discussion, and, not incidentally, would provide more information for the regulars to chew on, increasing the probability that they will see things the way the front-liners do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I should have avoided that meta issue here as off topic – my bad. As my penance I'll refrain from voicing my response to your comment, but I'd be happy to continue that on my UTP. From time to time I can't resist testing the level of traction for serious reform, so I know whether starting a debate in a more appropriate forum is worth my time. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So are we now dealing with a case of ANI flu? Perhaps a block will convince Anthony to discuss this. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I would support that. At its core, this is a competence issue as I’ve been saying all along. Regardless of how many diffs there are, if this guy doesn’t want to collaborate with other editors or resolve disputes in an orderly way, I don’t think it’s reasonable for him to still be editing and creating work for others to fix. The way I see it, either he gets blocked or we close this discussion and let him do whatever he wants. Just letting him ignore problems that he has created isn’t fair to the project or to anyone who has clean up after him. Michepman (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"either he gets blocked or we close this discussion and let him do whatever he wants" No, we close this discussion and have it properly opened. That means an editor properly presents not just diffs but diffs with explanations individually accompanying each diff, just as we see at the section called PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor. Notice how each diff is orderly presented. Note how each diff is dated. Note how each diff is accompanied by an explanation by the person initiating the complaint, explaining why the diff is seen as supporting the overall complaint. As far as I can tell User:Tapered did not properly formulate the very first post in this section. I don't think this should be overlooked. The purpose for proper formulation is twofold. To take responsibility for lodging a complaint against another. And to make it easy for any onlooker to evaluate the complaint and therefore knowledgeably weigh in with constructive input. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, please review WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. This is not a personal issue between two editors, and there's no requirement for any of the things you are demanding. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

These weird calls for closures and "proper" opens are increasingly disruptive. The behavior has been presented, evidence has been provided, and pretending otherwise is deliberately unhelpful. It's an open discussion, and the OP's ongoing participation is not necessary if other editors are expressing concerns. Also support that Anthony22 needs a block if they are unwilling to respond to concerns here. Grandpallama (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The evidence / diffs have been presented, and the pattern of behavior has been documented. If User:Bus stop does not want to take the time to read through all of it, that's understandable, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an issue. Closing and reopening the discussion is not required by the rules and wouldn't add any value to the discussion, and I think it's time to actually talk about the behavioral issues raised above. Frankly, I don't think it's acceptable for a user to cause disruption and ignore all attempts to discuss it. If this was a one-time thing, it would be different, but a chronic behavioral issue that has gone unacknowledged and unremediated is disruptive. I get why a block might be distasteful, but I don't see how else to get his attention. Michepman (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The last time Anthony22 got this much heat (less heat, actually, since it didn't involve an ANI complaint), he took a 7-month wikibreak (see above). Considering that, the only useful block would be an indefinite one. After some number of months, when he decided to get the block lifted with a pledge to respond to this complaint (How does that work, exactly, after the complaint has long been archived? Would the thread be restored from archive? Would all participants here be notified of the resumption?) I think his response would be predictably much like the few responses we have already seen on his UTP, where little improvement has been realized.

The only response I'm interested in hearing is: "I agree not to do any more copy editing," either retiring or following my June 2018 suggestion to choose from the many other ways to contribute to the project in areas sorely in need of more help. An involuntary ban from copy editing would accomplish the same end while being more binding. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, I see he's somewhat active as of yesterday afternoon UTC, so part of my reasoning fails. Nevertheless, an indef block would be no different than a temp block with its lifting conditioned on his agreement to engage, except that it wouldn't automatically expire before he made that agreement.

But one needn't look any deeper than his last few days of editing to see some of the problem, and that the problem continues. Edits that are pointless at best, with hare-brained rationales. You don't "ban" an inanimate object; a person is banned. That alone violates the principle that every edit must improve the encyclopedia, and in my estimation it constitutes about half of his editing. Edits that show a lack of awareness of the need to reflect sources. Edits that show a lack of awareness of prior consensus, not because he's new to the article but because he shuns article talk. Mixed in are some good edits, and I've never claimed that he doesn't make any. I've asserted that the bad outweighs the good, hence "net negative", and experience shows that the bad is not going to be reduced via counseling. We generally need to recognize the importance of aptitude in this business, and that not everybody can be good at everything here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a request to see diffs from Anthony22's talk page (in so many words). Here are seven from June 25, 2019 2018 to August 25, 2019 : [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and there is more. that follows into August. All one has to do is continue flipping the pages. Here is Mandruss's June 2018 suggestion. That adds one more talk page diff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Anthony22 is still editing, and still making inapproriate edits that are quickly reverted. I see two possible courses of action here:

1. A restriction from copyediting. This would restrict him from editing any other editor's prose in articles, but allow him to add his own prose, and do various other kinds of things (e.g. add citations, categories etc.), or
2. A block until he presents a convincing case that he will stop this disruption.

Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would support either remedy, and I'm willing to make the block. Numerous editors have brought good-faith concerns and he's not engaging. Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I would hope that the number and sincerity of the good-faith concerns that you have rightly observed would mean that you get little opposition. You certainly have my support. If nothing else I hope it will encourage dialogue.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

allow him to add his own prose doesn't seem useful because many of the same issues would occur in his own prose. Pointless (or worse) and compulsive chewing on existing prose is only part of the problem. I would prefer a ban on copy editing, which pretty much means he doesn't touch prose. If there is some rule that such a ban can't be imposed without first hearing his response (i.e. his responses on his talk page don't count for this purpose), then an indef block is needed (and my "small" questions about process above have not been answered). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don’t believe that there is a rule that says that the admins can’t impose a ban without hearing from the user. While ideally he would be here and would communicate, the fact that he has chosen to ignore this WP:ANI thread doesn’t immunize him from a sanction. As far as banning him from adding prose to an article — I see your point, but if he isn’t allowed to contribute his own prose then isn’t that effectively a ban on editing of all kinds? Maybe that’s for the best, but I think it goes beyond a restriction on copy editing, since all he could do really is add sources and other activities that don’t involve adding text. Michepman (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

See this. Like "editor", "editing" has a very broad definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the thrust of this thread too broad-brushed? Has Anthony22 been reported at AN/I before? Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a ban on copy editing is appropriate at this point. If they don't adhere to the ban then a block would be needed. I'm not sure for how long a block. I can see the logic behind an indef block - they would have to delineate how they would change their behavior before the block is lifted. But even when the block is lifted I think the ban should remain in place while they show they will no longer be disruptive. The ban can removed once confidence is restored by they're editing behavior. I'm sure any Admin or set of Admins can do this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear - what I mean by "ban on copy editing" is this would include not adding their own prose because I see potential conflict there. As has been pointed out above there are other types of editing available. Article talk page discussions should also be allowed. (imho). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has even alleged that their edits are in bad faith. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the allegations are of chronic disruptive edits. AGF is fine but the seemingly resolute refusal of the editor to engage with the concerns expressed here and elsewhere makes that less easy than it could be. To be didactic re process concerning the continued involvement of the original complainant seems contradictory to the lack of acknowledgment that the editor in question's own absence makes restrictive action more necessary than it would be were that not the case.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NEDOCHAN -- good faith is not everything, and an editor acting in good faith can still be disruptive if their edits -- well-meaning though they may be -- do not improve the article and have to be reverted by numerous editors. However, before I can support a ban on copy editing, I think "copy editing" needs to be somewhat more precisely defined, both so that Anthony22 can know exactly what he is not allowed to do, and so the community can see clearly if he violates the sanctions or tries to game them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that's too vague, and something like "no direct addition, removal, or alteration of article prose" might suffice. If that left any holes, e.g. as to infobox parameter values, I don't think the magnitude of the remaining problem would be any more significant than what we routinely deal with from hundreds of other editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"[T]he seemingly resolute refusal of the editor to engage with the concerns expressed here" is explainable by the vagueness of the charges. I think there is little they could say in their own defense against charges so nonspecific. Have they been brought to AN/I before? Have they ever even been blocked? Couldn't a problematic edit result in an admin blocking for 24 hours? The thrust of this thread is to go from zero to 60 mph in a heartbeat. Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I think there is little they could say in their own defense against charges so nonspecific. With supreme effort, I'm going to refrain from uttering an expletive synonymous with equine feces. That is a simply ridiculous argument, and we see you grasping at straws. There is exactly nothing preventing Anthony22 from coming here and posting something like the following: "I'll be happy to respond here, but I don't entirely understand what the problem is perceived to be. Could you elaborate?" Your role here is not to do that on his behalf. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's becoming very difficult to take your points seriously. You have an odd idea of a heart beat.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN—incremental is best. WP:BLOCK: "Duration of blocks—Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden". Why do I say we are going from 0 to 60 in a heartbeat? Because there were no earlier blocks for shorter lengths of time. Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

His block log indicates that he was blocked once over a year ago, but that's it. I think the situation would be different if the subject agreed to come here and discuss the issue with other editors so that we can move forward collaboratively, but his decision not to participate -- which you have tried and failed to justify above -- has kind of backed everyone else into a corner. If he isn't willing to change his ways, or even to discuss others' concerns and collaborate to resolve the editing disputes as all editors are required to do, then what else is there to do? Your objections seem mostly bureaucratic in nature -- closing and reopening discussions, rearranging diffs, etc. You're not really discussing the substance of the complaints being raised, even though they've been explained repeatedly since the discussion opened... Michepman (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Michepman—I stand corrected. He has one block on his record but it may have been for something unrelated. If they make a future problematic edit, a 24 hour block can be imposed. An admin can be notified by a non-admin, with or without an AN/I thread being opened. 24 hour blocks can be followed with 72 hour blocks. And this is incremental instead of draconian. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If had made "a future problematic edit," what would a 24-hour block prevent? with or without an AN/I thread being opened. No admin is going to unilaterally block for a bad copy edit, particularly one by an established editor. Regardless, escalating blocks would not increase his aptitude for the pure wordsmithing part of copy editing, which, as I've said, I estimate to be about half of the overall problem; that's something you have or you don't. Nor would escalating blocks reduce the quite evident compulsiveness to "improve" prose that doesn't need improving. incremental instead of draconian It is not "draconian" to ask an editor to find a different rewarding way to contribute to the project. The only one being unreasonable in this situation is Anthony22, who, faced with an unusual level of agreement that he should find that different way, refuses to do so and refuses to explain why he refuses to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"Your role here is not to do that on his behalf." Obviously Anthony22 can come here and post whatever they choose. I am not in communication with them. I'm just guessing why they may not be inclined to get involved in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Complete (and out of position) failure to get the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your points is that it is problematic that the editor has not shown up here. I don't entirely disagree, but I think I understand why, and I have offered my suggestion as to why that may be. Further you express that "[n]o admin is going to unilaterally block for a bad copy edit, particularly one by an established editor". I don't know if that is so. Perhaps an admin will weigh in on that. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The point, which you still fail to get, is that it is not useful for us to speculate as to what bad reasons Anthony22 might have for failing to respond here. By even bringing that up, you are attempting to defend the indefensible – or, if you're not defending it, what's the point of bringing that up? We don't need to understand [...] why that may be. Again, you are consuming lots of oxygen without contributing much to this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—you say "escalating blocks would not increase his aptitude for the pure wordsmithing part of copy editing". Is it not possible that escalating blocks would in general influence an editor to think twice before making possibly-problematic edits? This comes down to the opinions of admins so I hope one weighs in here. Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bus stop. I think we have gone around in circles for a bit, and it has been 5-6 days so far with no actual progress being made in any direction. I think it's time for an admin to weigh in and decide what, if anything, they will do to help resolve this issue constructively. If the admins can't or won't intervene at this point, then we should at least get clarity on that as well so that we aren't just spinning our wheels for another week. Michepman (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been here a number of times before. We now have over 6,000 words that no admin has the time to read and absorb, thanks in large part to Bus stop's pointless verbosity, "weird calls for closures", goalpost-moving, failure to hear, and so on, all resulting from a lack of a moderator with teeth. If an admin looks at all, they will perform a quick scan for the large number of diffs sufficient to warrant a topic ban. Not seeing that for the reason I've explained previously, they will decline to act. Equally likely is that the thread will just be ignored until it's archived. Either way, the years-long Anthony22 problem will remain unresolved. Having already cost a considerable amount of editor time, it will continue to cost editor time, and someone will eventually become fed up enough to open another complaint here. And then it will cost yet more editor time here, probably resulting in no admin action again. 'Round and 'round and 'round we go, all to avoid asking one editor to find a different way to contribute. As I've indicated, this page is seriously broken. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion conservative treatment for a problem is preferable to more radical methods of addressing a problem. This issue has received attention in this thread. It should be easier in the future to link to this thread and summon a sympathetic admin if you or anyone else sees a particularly problematic edit by Anthony22. Escalating blocks would probably have a beneficial effect. This is conservative and less radical than "asking one editor to find a different way to contribute". Bus stop (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. If eighteen comments are not enough to convince other participants, another eighteen repeating the same arguments are unlikely to change any minds. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal

Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page. This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have notified Anthony22 on their talk page about this proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken—can you address why your suggestion is preferable to escalating blocks if edits made by Anthony22 are deemed block-worthy? Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• He has a history of going away for a while when criticized, then resuming his behavior after everyone has moved on to other things. Escalating blocks are thus unlikely to solve the underlying problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Further, escalating blocks are a haphazard solution, requiring admins to recognize the situation and its history and apply the blocks, or an editor to report A22 to the noticeboards, where a discussion such as this one is likely to result. The offered proposal seeks to short circuit that waste of time and energy and cut to the core of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This can be addressed by more moderate means such as escalating blocks. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as being the remedy that is most likely to solve the problem. The usual "edit productively in other areas for six months and then feel free to appeal" language should be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I am very reluctant to support any kind of block or ban, but the ongoing disruption and time-wasting doesn't leave a lot of options, sadly. If Anthony had made any effort at all to engage with the discussion (here, on his own talk page, or in another talk page) I would feel differently, but I'm afraid that this is the only way that this issue will be resolved constructively (without repeating the cycle of people complaining, Anthony hiding out for a little while, and then resuming the disruption after everyone has forgotten). Michepman (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's more complex than I would prefer, and some of the persistent issues will still manifest in the content that it allows him to add. But it's far better than nothing. He may well choose not to add anything, since he hasn't shown much interest in sources or citations. My earlier rant may have been overblown; we'll see. It occurred to me after I wrote it that a formal proposal had not been attempted; thanks to BMK for starting it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Mandruss: I'm aware that my proposal doesn't give everyone everything they would want, but I tried to craft it so that Anthony22 wouldn't be driven away from editing, and would have the opportunity to contribute in a productive way, but with safeguards (i.e. requiring references for additions and talk page explanations for deletions) that would help keep his contributions on the straight-and-narrow. I'll admit it's not a perfect solution, but I wanted to do something to get the ball rolling and possibly wrap up this overly extended discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per Michepman- the lack of engagement or explanation and the ongoing time required to reverse the errors combined mean there is no obvious alternative.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open. By the way, there is a staggering difference of opinion on the issue of constructive vs. disruptive editing. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written with terrible grammar, spelling, punctuation, chronology, logic, and sentence structuring. I have attempted to correct those mistakes. Some of the people who revert my edits are doing more harm than good. There has been a staggering waste of time and effort on my part as well as a waste of time of the revert "specialists". The first thing that you have to recognize about Wikipedia is the fact that the information cannot be verified. Even with so-called "reliable" sources, don't bet your life on what you read in the articles. The most hilarious newspaper headline of all time was, "Dewey Defeats Truman" in 1948. Wikipedia has also had some silly headlines.Anthony22 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• This appears to be a statement that you will sockpuppet to avoid any editing restrictions that the community chooses to impose. I suggest that you clarify what you mean here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't say that I would actually do this. I said that I could do this if I wanted to continue editing. I'm beginning to think that it's a waste of time to edit on Wikipedia.Anthony22 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• And here we see nub of the problem, Anthony22: you really do not seem to have the ability to express in writing what you intend to express. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Please re-read the proposal carefully. If it is accepted by the community, you would not be blocked from editing, you would be disallowed from making what are referred to as "copyediting" changes, changes in grammar or syntax. I disagree that the "overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles are very poorly written", although it is indisputably the case that there is a significant amount of poor writing. That, however, is not relevant to this discussion, because the issue here is not that articles are badly written, the issue is that your attempts to fix them do not generally improve those articles, and there is little "staggering difference of opinion" about that: the clear consensus in the discussion above agrees that your "improvements" just aren't improvements. The rest of your argumentation is irrelevant at best, specious at worst.
  I agree with Nigel Ish that your first two sentences appear to be a threat to sock if you are blocked. I would advise you to strike those sentences, which amount to an argument that no one should ever be blocked for any reason at any time, because they can always sock their way around the block. Such a viewpoint shows a fundamental disrespect for Wikipedia and its editing community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that no one should be blocked from editing at any time. Editors who vandalize articles can and should be blocked. What I AM saying is that you cannot stop someone from getting around a block. Personally, I would not register a new account with a different username to get around a block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony22 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• If you have no intention of socking, what the heck is the point of bringing it up? We're not having some abstract intellectual discussion about editing on Wikipedia, we're examining whether your editing is helpful or not and whether you should be sanctioned in some way. In that context -- the only reasonable context there is -- your talking about socking can only be taken as a threat to do so. I can't believe that any independent observer would take it as anything else.
  Please keep your commentary here focused on why you should not be sanctioned or, at the very least, acknowledge what other editors are complaining about and give some assurances that you won't continue to do it. What your general thoughts are about Wikipedia are nothing but a distraction and, frankly, an apparent dodge from dealing with your own problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per lengthy discussion in the previous section, and per Anthony22's response immediately above. When finally motivated enough to respond, Anthony22's response was a denial of any problem, a repudiation of WP:V, and a veiled threat to sock. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• There was no "veiled threat to sock". What you are engaging in I would characterize as "language policing". Bus stop (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Really?

  What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open. (emphasis added)

  Bus stop, please don't start that garbage again. That most certainly was a threat to sock, not an anstract statement, no matter how much Anthony22 seeks to deny it, or how many blind eyes you wish to turn to it, as you have been doing throughout this discussion in regard to Anthony22's behavior. Your participation here has been unhelpful and obstructive, and I, for one, would like to see you stop it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia.........This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed.

When I read those opening words, I thought that I had been blocked from editing for the next 6 months. I misinterpreted the wording, which is VERY confusing. I still don't know what "topic banned" means if I have not been blocked.Anthony22 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You can read about topic bans here: WP:Topic ban. I'm astounded that after 13 1/2 years on Wikipedia and 34,363 edits, you have no idea what a topic ban is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ortizesp and page moves (again)

Following an earlier ANI discussion, Ortizesp (talk · contribs) was topic banned for 2 months from 23 June to 23 August by @Kudpung: from making page moves. Shortly after this, @JJMC89: confirmed to Ortizesp that "using WP:RM/TR is not permitted". Immediately after the topic ban was implemented, Ortizesp arguably breached the spirit of it with edits like this and this in which Ortizesp attempted to rename the articles without moving the pages. @Primefac: seemed to agree that this violated the spirit.

Immediately upon the topic ban expiring, Ortizesp (inappropriately IMHO) added a whole bunch of articles to WP:RM/TR. This was partially reverted by @Ahecht:, but not before some pages were moved (since reverted by @Anthony Appleyard: as confirmed here). Ortizesp's conduct has created a lot of unnecessary work and headaches for multiple other editors.

I remain convinced that Ortizesp's competence and attitude towards page moves and article names is entirely unsuitable. I suggest a new, indefinite topic ban from moving pages without using RM (limited to 1 discussion per 24 hours) or an IDHT/CIR block. GiantSnowman 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll chime in to say that the move requests were sloppy at best. Most were simple moves to an unused title that shouldn't have been at "Technical Requests" in the first place since there was no technical reason that Ortizesp couldn't have moved them. Of the remaining ones, most had a rationale of "WP:COMMONNAME per refs", but many had no refs in the article using the desired target name. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Explain to me why these were sloppy requests? If you click the external links or references, almost none of them would use the full legal name of these persons, and instead uses the shortened one's. I put these all into technical requests to avoid these issues, i figured it's the patrollers responsibility to move open up discussions as required. Moreover, you sited WP:NATURALDIS for leaving these at pages other than their WP:COMMONNAME. I instead was looking at WP:NCSP, where disambiguating is done through parentheses. For example, I don't think it makes sense for the player only known as Samir, to be placed at page Hélder Samir Lopes Semedo Fernandes - this isn't useful for anyone trying to find the page. I'm trying to follow the rules, and following previous advises to use WP:ANI wp:RM (wp:RM was clearly meant, confirmed elsewhere --Doncram (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)), so let me know what I'm doing wrong.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been using the 'technical request' function, which is not if you just think the name should be changed - as its name suggests it is for technical moves, for example if you are undoing a dodgy page move but cannot because you do not have sufficient rights. You have been gaming the system (innocently or not). How many articles have you moved using that page as you have admitted here? You have been told repeatedly in the past to use Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move on the article talk page, but you have not done so. GiantSnowman 17:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I was advised to use WP:RM, and not specifically Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. I admit error on my part, but from genuine misunderstanding rather than maliciousness. If I have to incur another ban, so be it, but I hope you can see how confusing this is from my point of view.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Support indefinite topic ban, including the "renaming" without moving, like GiantSnowman et al suggested violated the spirit of the ban. - Frood (talk!) 17:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

*Support Indef TBAN with escalating sitebans for non-compliance (starting with 72 hours). The indef topic is fairly clear, given multiple either basic failures or willful evasions. From the evidence stated, the CIR lack isn't so broad that they can't edit anywhere competently. As such, aggressively forcing out of this sphere might serve. We'll see. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't interpreted the TBAN to prohibit talking about page moves. The previous discussion has now been hidden. I oppose that aspect of the TBAN. I may tweak my thoughts depending on the outcome of a discussion below. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Didn't want to re-factor the above, so I've struck it and wrote a new one at the bottom Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban - IMHO CIR/IDHT blocking right now would be excessive given he's not a pain in the ass anywhere else on the project .... but I certainly agree with Nosebagbear longer blocks should occur the moment he breaches the TBAN but I'm sure Ortiz can now see the error of his ways and I'm sure he won't breach the TBAN. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban I have removed all of Ortizesp’s requests from WP:RM/TR because they do not have a snowball’s chance to occur. In fact, Ortizesp should not even be allowed to add move discussions on talk pages or use {{db-move}}, nor ask other users to move pages for him on their user talk pages, because many requests might be closed per WP:SNOW. Also, we should mass revert all of his moves, and delete all of his open move requests that do not already have support votes. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Per GiantSnowman Support topic ban. I really think this is proper to dissuade the user from such actions that disrupt the encyclopedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support ban on moving pages per GiantSnowman and per the evident ineffectiveness of the time-limited ban, but I do not support a ban from page move discussions. All bans of this sort should be indefinite until the user demonstrates familiarity with article titling policies and successfully appeals. Ortizesp could demonstrate this familiarity by using the process for potentially contentious moves and accepting feedback while refraining from moving pages themselves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. This seems somewhat unfair. The user is criticized here partly for their using technical move requests rather than directly moving pages when they could have done so. Seems to me they were being appropriately conservative about not embarking on making page moves directly, but rather asking for someone else to consider the moves and make them or not. This is in good faith and in spirit with them returning, humbly, to the area again. Yet they are being blasted on both sides, for engaging in the area again and for not going far enough. I agree that it would have been more correct for them to have made regular, non-technical wp:RM requests, and they have been advised about that here, so they should only do that going forward. Basically, Ortizesp, I think the community feels you haven't proved you really have mastered this area, so you should assume that any move you'd want to make is at least potentially controversial, therefore you should use the regular wp:RM request method. Technical requests are just for obviously uncontroversial moves which just cannot be implemented by yourself due to technical reasons (like there having been a previous move); actions of several here are saying many or all of your recent such requests are in fact not obvious. I think Ortizesp understands this now. Given the feedback here, they should be even less confident in their judgment on moves, so they should only use the wp:RM process for potentially controversial moves. And to avoid burdening the community, they should only make one or two such requests at a time (i.e. during each 7 to 10 period it takes for these to be resolved), and they should pay attention and learn from the consensus decision processes. But they seem not to have been malicious at all, and they are trying to learn and trying not to cause difficulty. Ortizesp should proceed slowly, and be allowed to continue to learn. This is all fine. Live and let live. It is very costly and usually very mean, IMHO, for Wikipedia to impose punishments on editors (meaning the costs to general goodwill and to community-building, as well as administrative costs); here it seems not necessary to do so. --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose ban - I think that it would be okay to restrict him from making page moves, but I think that telling him that he can't even talk about page moves as part of the ordinary course of discussion seems overly punitive. I think the suggestions raised by User:Doncram are wise and judicious, and should be adopted instead. Michepman (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose ban – It looks to me like he could use some coaching about how to approach page moves. Someone should volunteer to mentor him or otherwise help, instead of just slapping him down. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - What Doncram says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - This looks to me like a case of misunderstandings rather than maliciousness. After the topic ban was up Ortizesp used WP:RM as instructed, and per his note above simply misread and used the wrong section there. I would like to advise Ortizesp to slow down on these kinds of changes, taking appropriate time to make sure each edit (or proposed edit) is accurate, and echo Dicklyon above that it would be nice if someone could actively support them rather than continually threatening bans. Sam Walton (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment/Suggestion - @Doncram: raises some interesting points. But I'm also concerned about him clogging up WP:RM, as with the hoard of TRs. Do we think an alternate limit of 1 request every 24/48 hours, always to be made to the WP:RM#CM, no direct moves allowed, talking about others' proposed moves is fine? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

To clarify my original request - I did not request (and nor do I want to) a ban from using 'standard RM' (starting a discussion on the talk page using the appropriate templates so it is listed). The opposite in fact - I have repeatedly encouraged them to do that, but they have failed to do so. However, I agree that a limit of one listing every 24 hours is appropriate, to avoid dozens of requests being made at once. GiantSnowman 11:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I think some of us were alarmed because of the suggestion above that User:Ortizesp be prohibited from even discussing page moves on user talk pages and that everything he has done so far be automatically reverted, which seems to me to be overly punitive and needlessly harsh. A more modest limitation on the frequency of page moves and an encouragement that he reach out with any questions on the procedure seems much more reasonable. Michepman (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef TBAN with provisions - I still support an Indef TBAN on moving pages himself, along with escalating sitebans for non-compliance. Going with allowing rate limited (1 per 24hrs) requests to Controversial moves at requested moves (no use of TR). No limitations on discussing page moves. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about the need/usefulness/fairness to put a ban into place. This is effectively ONE incident, i.e. they have one-time created a bunch of move requests, about which they are hereby getting feedback that others do not agree those are obviously valid and feedback that creating multiple move requests causes work for other editors and therefore they should only ever make move requests at a very slow pace (slow enough to learn from the process). I disagree with suggestion they should create one move request per day, because that is too fast... there is no opportunity to learn from the 7 or 10 process on the first request, before forming the second request. Again it is costly and mean to impose topic bans, IMHO, and it is not necessary here. Consider this whole ANI proceeding to be ONE instance of giving the editor some feedback. Back off, i say. --Doncram (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Averette and the Cuban sandwich

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

• Having watched this for a for months I agree Averette behavior has been sub-optimal. We might be getting to a time when a one revert sanction or a topic ban may be in order. This [[9]] actually makes me think we are at a point where an indef block may be called for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

• Support topic ban on Cuban sandwich and Tampa/Ybor City broadly construed. The comment about Tampa in the diff Hell in a Bucket posted was reprehensible. Support indefinite block if that behavior resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban Never did I think I'd support a sandwich topic ban... who knew a sandwich could be so controversial. I think this warrants inclusion in WP:LAME. I also think a strong warning for this diff is in order. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN was just about to say what Captain Eek said above, I'm having trouble getting over how absurd it is that someone is edit-warring and potentially getting a TBAN over the history of a sandwich. Also, this discussion is making me hungry. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• SPI clerk note - an investigation was filed over Averette's logged-out editing this week. I declined to block based on that because I presumed they just forgot to log in after being away for a significant amount of time, and the page was protected so the damage was limited. If someone wants to block for some other reason, I'm not standing in the way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Propose and support indefinite block for this. If they post comments like that because of a sandwich, no one knows what they'll post when they get into a dispute over something more substantial than that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• This is that has been posted today after the warnings [[10]]. I think the good faith or lack there of is pretty evident. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

• User:Michepman, it could be but it would be really coincidental if you look at that post and this edit [[11]]. Could be wrong but I doubt it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Range block for category vandal

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

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

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

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

Disruptive IP editing at Hippie and now Hipster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained campaign of misattribution of views

I have requested that User:92.14.216.40 desist from attributing to me views that I have not in fact expressed. This has been sustained, largely at my talk page (particularly the section Hebrides Change) and Talk:English people. Despite a promise to desist the misattribution of statements to me has persisted. I requested that the IP strike a thread containing views falsely attributed to me but they compounded it with a further misattribution (the quote of mine is genuine, the subsequent supposed claim of mine is fabricated).

Pinging @Drmies:, who chanced upon the IPs general activities and their thread on my talk page and engaged with me sympathetically in this regard (also in regard to a sustained campaign of forum-posting by this IP and its possible relation to another largely IP-based forum campaign). Drmies may have a perspective. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, do you maybe fancy telling me what you did mean by the comment? I don't exactly know how else to read it. You've repeatedly stated the English people are not a West Germanic ethnic group because they absorbed and assimilated non-Germanic peoples over the centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

As if to illustrate, a typical example; I've stated no such thing. You will be supporting this assertion with diffs, presumably? Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a perspective: this is crazy and out of hand. The IP is obviously NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I am at all, Drmies. Again I'm discussing this on an article about English people which Mutt is actively involved in a heated defense of his position with several other editors who all echo the same thoughts as me and provide sources for classifying the English people, as speakers of a West Germanic tongue, as a West Germanic people. Hardly controversial, I'd have thought?

Mutt, on the other hand, seems to strongly disagree. Or sorry he doesn't disagree, apparently, but just claims he disagrees and then denies he disagreed when you claim he did disagree. And then ignores a direct quote from him disagreeing? What am I supposed to do with that, exactly?

I'm trying to improve the article and have a more objective, accurate page on the English people, Mutt seems to be pushing for his personal feelings and agendas to be realized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

How long has it been since you cited a damn source? Looking at both your current IP and your previous (92.4.16.225), it looks like, oh, maybe once or twice in the last year? You go on and on and on about the things that you recall and how you feel about them, but basically never back your arguments with authoritative sources. You may feel compelled to reply to this with a tu quoque fallacy, but that doesn't really help you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Cited a source for speakers of a West Germanic language being a West Germanic ethnic group? Well, as I mentioned, several sources were already provided to Mutt by other editors which he ignored and brushed off because... as he seemed to imply the reason he didn't accept this classification for the English people is that the English had absorbed and assimilated non-Germanic peoples over time? When asked for an example of an ethnic group that had not absorbed and assimilated peoples that at one point in time did not belong to the same ethnolinguistic group he provided absolutely nothing.

What is being said here? That the English cannot be classified into an ethnolinguistic group? Are they alone in the world, a unique case of an ethnic group that cannot be sorted into an Indo-European, or other, ethnolinguistic family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems relevant to point out Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Modified by motion (April 2011) at this point, in particular the parts about civility and reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This is fair. However I, and the several other editors that have clashed with Mutt over this, am the one putting forth an objective, academic classification of the English people. It's Mutt who is getting emotional about this and denying the classification of a people as what they objectively are in an ethnolinguistic sense. If you take issue with the English being classed as West Germanic, first and foremost I would ask why. Which I did with Mutt. His reasoning was selective and could be applied to any ethnic group on the planet, it does not stop them from warranting classification. It does not make the English some special case where we have to act like they cannot be classified due to the political sensitivities of certain people to that classification.

Again, if they are not Germanic now then the people they absorbed historically were never Celtic in the first place. That's not up for dispute or debate. That's not an insensitive comment, it is reality. If you're going to apply this brush to the English when it comes to Germanic classification you also have to apply it to them when it comes to the Celtic peoples they absorbed.

These may be emotional and sensitive issues, but we're here to deliver facts, and to class the English as anything other than West Germanic is blatantly wrong unless you're also going to rob any ethnic group of the ability to be classed into an Indo-European (or other) family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Every single other ethnic group which speaks Germanic languages is listed as a Germanic ethnic group in the opening sentence. Austrians, Germans, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Flemish, Dutch... Every single one. Why? Why the exception with English people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This is just getting beyond a joke now. Those pages opening lines describing all these ethnic groups as Germanic are often sourced themselves with sources with specifically include the English when describing Germanic peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve content disputes; see WP:DR. As for the behavior issues, if there is a case for WP:NOTHERE or WP:DE, I think someone should present it. The only claim so far with even an attempt at substantiation is that "they keep saying I said things I didn't say," which seems unworthy of this page. There is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or essay against "sustained misattribution of views". ―Mandruss ☎ 06:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP is the only one raising issues of content here, in characteristically copious measure, but it shows the efficacy of their redirection tactics if it leads anyone into imagining this submission is a content dispute. It's plain I have addressed solely behaviour here, NOTHERE behaviour. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP is the only one raising issues of content here and the IP is who that part of my comment was directed at. And if "they keep saying I said things I didn't say" is the totality of your NOTHERE case, I'd say you've failed to make it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

...and to make false accusations against other editors on Talk pages covers "sustained misattribution of views" pretty deftly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't cite essays here, particularly obscure ones that lack widespread support. I thought about inserting "widely-accepted" before "essay" above, but decided it wasn't worth another edit as most editors at this page understand how we commonly apply essays in behavior issues. In hindsight I was wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict and as you appear to have subsequently clocked:) You actively invited it with your remark that there was nothing from them to cite. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Most editors don't habitually frequent this page so don't be so condescending. If it's not specified in policy etc., self-evident lying is an acceptable practice? Really? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, here's one. This is actually Cassandrathesceptic (talk · contribs), who probably has more edits logged out than logged in, and it would take me quite some time to tally all of the IPs they have used. They have essentially been using talk pages as forums for at least five years, rarely making suggestions or arguments based on sources, and frequently making factual assertions to support a proposed edit, but without actually citing the source of those facts. I think they are acting in good faith, and they do very well to stick to talk pages, but their contributions are almost never helpful. These are newbie mistakes, not five-year-veteran mistakes. Most likely the only reason this account has not already been indeffed is that their (logged in) edits come in brief spurts months apart, most edits are attributed to dynamic IPs, and they are only disrupting talk pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, the IP is denying the connecting to that account on Matt Lunker's talk page and Cassandrathesceptic's talk page. If it's clear they are connected, this is IMO strong evidence of abusive WP:sockpuppetry. While it's sometimes okay to edit logged out, as with multiple accounts if you are editing the same articles or highly related areas this definitely needs to be disclosed. While editor's understandable do not always want to connect their account with an IP, this then means you need to take due care. The occasional mistake may be excepted. But continuing both editing from your IP and you account in the same articles or otherwise highly related areas means you cannot disavow a connection. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed Cassandrathesceptic was not notified yet so I did so. BTW, the user sub page User:Cassandrathesceptic/Scots Language should probably be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. Not sure if people feel it qualifies for U5 or it needs to be taken to MFD. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's honestly hard to tell wrt socking. There are countless IPs accross the TalkTalk ranges that rant endlessly about essentially this exact subject, who almost never cite sources, and refuse to sign their posts. Some of them are clearly Cassandra, and the IPs that admit to being Cassandra overlap in range with this particular IP user we are discussing. If they are actually different people, then it's just two different people who aren't being helpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I strongly disagree. Someone who keeps misattributing a contributor's views should be blocked per WP:NPA. If you're having trouble understanding someone you can seek clarification on what they meant. If you still keep misunderstanding then there is a simple solution. Stop attributing views to them. If an editor refuses to do so and instead keeps attributing to someone a view they do not hold, this effectively a personal attack and should be treated accordingly. That said, if this is mostly occuring on Mutt Lunker's talk page it would have been better for them to simply ban the IP from there and see if that stopped it first. If the IP kept posting to the user's talk page that is a simple block. If the IP instead started misattributing views elsewhere that's also a clearer block since someone cannot reasonably be expected to read and correct their views every time they are mentioned all over the place. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

To note, the misattribution of views by this particular IP are not restricted to my talk page but also at Talk:Hebrides#English-speaking and multiple threads at Talk:English people. I repeatedly asked them to desist at both and specifically requested they strike the comments at the latter.

If this is connected with Cassandrathesceptic and associated IPs, such misattributions are scattergunned across countless articles stretching back years. (Their earliest activity, that I am aware of, is in April 2012 as a string of roving IPs, the username account being a late acquisition, rarely used in the overall picture of their IP edits.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In my experience personal attack has been limited to statements about what "you are", not what "you did" and certainly not what "you said". In any case, yours is the first reference to NPA, so you disagreed with a position I hadn't taken. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course falsely accusing someone of having a view they do not have is a personal attack. Otherwise I could say "Mandruss believes niggers are not human and all deserve to die" when you do not believe that and have never said anything to lead people to reasonably believe you believe that and it's not a personal attack simply because I never actually said you're a racist even though I think most people would prefer to be called a racist than to be falsely accused of having such a belief. In any case "There is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or essay against "sustained misattribution of views" vs "you disagreed with a position I hadn't taken". You explicitly said there was no Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay rather than no "I am not aware of" or "no one has brought up a relevant policy" or any such thing. So you did explicitly say there was no such policy, guideline or essay which is clearly wrong, since it goes against NPA at a minimum. And I was not "disagreeing with a position that you hadn't taken" but instead disagreeing with a position you had taken namely "there is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay". So @Mandruss: when you're going to make up bullshit about what you actually said, I will disengage. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

But you're going to make up bullshit about what you actually said is not a personal attack because you can read my mind and therefore know when I'm "making up bullshit". That's fairly typical ABF doublethink for this page. Don't bother disengaging, I'll do it for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I apologise, I intended to say "if you're going" but in my anger I said "when". I intended to acknowledge the possibility maybe this was't what you intended, but it was how it was coming across to me and if you were going to do that, I would not be engaging further. I had no desire to do so, since you seemed to have falsely accused me of "disagreeing with a position you hadn't taken" something I considered extremely offensive. Especially since it seemed clear as I explained in some detail in my modified response, that I was explicitly and intentionally disagreeing with what you had actually said namely your claim that "there is no policy, guideline or essay which prevents sustained misattribution of views". As I pointed out with an intentionally offensive example in my second response, this makes absolutely no sense in my eyes from even a basic consideration of NPA and how it's normally interpreted and applied, or for that matter, how it should be interpreted or applied. I do not know why you said what you said about how I'd "disagreed with a position you hadn't taken", whether your forgot what you had said or thought you'd said something you didn't and didn't check before replying or misread or misunderstood what I was disagreeing with or something else. (I myself made this mistaken when I initially applied and assumed I'd said "if" only to later realise I did not so I can understand how easy it happens in the heat of the moment.) If you don't wish to offer an explanation that's up to you. But I was very angry when you accused me of it and so made a mistake when replying because of that, leaving out the key "if" and I apologise for that again. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

We had a miscommunication. If I'm guilty of a minor brain fart, and I'm not sure I am, then I apologize for it, and it was a brain fart of little consequence. It hardly seems worthy of the ~600 words of discussion so far, and I don't think it will be useful to conduct a thorough post-mortem to determine precisely what happened. Insinuations about "possible" bad faith are a different thing entirely. Apology accepted, no real harm done, but I hope you can learn to let anger subside before responding. Adrenaline is a nasty drug that fucks with the mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked Mutt for clarification which he never provides. In fact if you go over every exchange we've had he has repeatedly accused me of misattributing views to him when I am actually asking him what is views are on a subject, because he so rarely provides any defense of his position, or apparent position.

A pretty perfect example is the quote I provided for him on his own talk page where he basically states people do not change ethnolinguistic groups when their ancestors adopt new native languages because their ancestors before that once spoke different languages, which would again rob any ethnic group on the planet of the ability to be categorized into families. As I said if the people of the British Isles are not Germanic today, they were never Celtic. Something I've asked Mutt to elaborate on or to defend what I perceived to be his stance from his comment, and which he has yet to.

What exactly can I do when an editor repeatedly refuses to answer any questions you ask about his stance and instead interprets those as misattribution of views/personal attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If and editor does not wish to clarify, what you can do is stop bugging them. And stop deciding what they believe. It's ultimately none of your fucking business. The only thing that matters should be how we improve our articles based on reliable secondary sources and our policies and guidelines. The only views of of an editor that really matter are whether the text of an article accurately represents reliable secondary sources according to our policies and guidelines or whether there's a better alternative and anything related to such. (Like whether a source is a RS etc.) And even in these area's, there's rarely a good reason why you have to summarise someone's PoV. Every other editor can read their signed comments and decide for themselves when it matters, like deciding what the consensus is. It's definitely none of your fucking business what someone's views are of Germanic, Celtic, British Isles or any other people or ethnic groups or any other such jazz. Some editors are willing to share their views, within reason. Others are not. Leave the personal shit out of it and concentrate on building an encyclopaedia. If you are here to discuss your personal views, or the views of other editors, please leave. There are a million other forums on the internet where you can discuss your views. Wikipedia is not one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well it is my business, and all of our businesses, if he's blocking the improvement of the article with more accurate information, is it not? It's not a matter of person opinion or debate, the English people ARE a West Germanic ethnic group. You know you can "feel like" Hungarians are really just West Slavs due to their genetics, but at the end of the day they're not Slavs at all and nobody would class them as such. Your personal opinion is irrelevant until it leads to you blocking an objective opening line about the English people on their article. I'm not sure where your dissonance is coming from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The longer you go without citing a source, the less likely you are to sway anyone. Though if you do come up with sources to refer to, ANI is not the place. If you continue to post opinions and arguments without reference to sources, you will eventually be shown the door. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned, sources have been cited frequently both in the English people talk page AND on the articles of every other Germanic ethnic group, which Mutt has ignored and waived because, as he seems to imply, the English have absorbed non-Germanic peoples in the past? Again this can be applied to any ethnic group on the planet, just about. So where are we now? Sources have been provided, sources have been ignored, Mutt refuses to clarify his reasoning for doing so other than with logic that can be applied to any ethnic group. When you try to ascertain why he is being so obstinate regarding this he accuses you of misattributing views to him. Where are we now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re all at risk of being ‘Lunkered’. In other words an attempt is being made to manipulate you for malicious purposes. I have endured repeated accusations, threats, hostile-editing and bullying language from Mutt over several years. Mutt suffers from what I call ‘Wiki-rage’. Being confronted with facts which Mutt dislikes has periodically triggered attempts to shut down and/or intimidate. I’ve never deleted the list of postings on my Wikipage because taken together they amply illustrate a long record of ill-founded (and always personal) attacks. I'd invite you to simply take no notice of him – unless that is anyone would like to propose or initiate some more robust response to Mutt’s years-long history of aggression and dubious tactics.

Mutt especially likes to report that I'm a sock puppet simply because my IP address changes frequently. Well it does. I've no idea why. It just does - but I'm certainly no sock puppet.

Meanwhile I see Mutt now seems to have turned his wrath on another poor Wikipedian who has been corresponding with me. I'd advise both to disengage.

One of the main triggers for Mutt’s attacks and complaints about me is the material contained in the paper attached to my main page – ‘Scots Language: Inconvenient Truths’. If anyone is at all interested in the remarkable contrast between real fully-referenced history and nationalist-romantic 'history' then I’m sure they will find it as fascinating to read as I did to uncover. I must however very much agree with the previous contributor - although I don't mind folk expressing opinions, it's facts that count, not opinion. And it is with well-referenced facts we can all best contribute to Wikipedia - even, perhaps especially, when we may not like those facts. Best wishes Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah this is pretty ridiculous. I've seen him involved in these spats with at least 3 editors now and God knows how many in the past over this subject. It's extremely tiring, and I'm still waiting for his clarification on why the English are not a West Germanic people as the only reason he has given in the past, as well as for refusing valid sources which are cited in the articles for other Germanic ethnic groups, is one that can again be applied to any ethnolinguistic group on the planet and makes absolutely no sense.

Your personal distaste for the classification of a certain people into a certain ethnolinguistic family is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Static IP making nothing but unsourced changes to population figures

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

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

Hi Oshwah, thanks for your answer and explanation. I don't think it's technically possible to be certain that it's static, is it? But it obviously passes the duck test, wouldn't that apply here? They've made the exact same edit to the Italians article three times, in November 2017 [12], September 2018 [13], and March 2019 [14], and two very similar edits to German diaspora, in October 2017 [15] and September 2018 [16]. For the past two years, 100% of the edits have been unsourced changes to sourced population numbers, almost all about the population of Brazil, in each case leaving the new figures contradicting the existing source, for example: [17].

In most cases the changes were eventually reverted (sometimes after weeks or months), but some were never caught and have remained in the articles until today, e.g.: [18] and [19]. There's no evidence of any other behavior or anyone else using the IP. I don't know what the rules are about IPs being "stale". I could try to keep an eye on their contributions, but I don't think I'd be able to check every day in order to catch them in the act. Since they edit so infrequently, a week-long block probably isn't going to have much effect anyway. It seems to me that the value of a longer-term block to stop what is obviously one person who has for years done nothing but add made-up statistics would outweigh the slim-to-none chance that it's actually a dynamic IP with multiple unrelated people making the exact same edits. But I don't always understand the way things work here... --IamNotU (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bot-like IP edits

Over the past few weeks, someone using the IP address 74.14.10.125 has been steadily making non-productive, seemingly scripted edits: changing infobox whitespace (examples: [20][21][22]) and removing/altering punctuation indiscriminately (examples: [23][24][25][26]). Would it be possible (or appropriate) for an administrator to rollback his or her edits en masse? gnu57 02:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there a problem with their edits, other than the fact that they seem to be automated? ST47 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they're doing indiscriminate/idiosyncratic removals of quotation marks, emdashes, ellipses, parentheses, and italicisation. gnu57 02:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This edit turned the items in the "motto" field in the infobox from Latin to English and left a red link template. They are not looking at the aftereffects of their edits to see if there are any problems with what they have done. I'm pretty sure there has been at least one other thread about this kind of editing on one of the noticeboards recently but I can't remember where or when at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk 02:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, per WP:MEATBOT, (to summarize) we're expected to pay attention to our edits and not allow speed or quantity to sacrifice quality. In dispute resolution, it's irrelevant whether the edits in question were performed by a bot, a human assisted by automation or a script, or a human without any such assistance. Regardless, the disruptive editing must stop, or the user can be blocked. Merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive - not unless repeated issues are reported and continue, especially during that kind of editing. If this IP user appears to be editing in a fast or "bot-like" fashion or speed, and their edits are causing repeated issues or errors, they can be blocked if they continue despite repeated attempts to ask them to resolve those issues or stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the user is a bot, how do we reach out to them to get them to stop? Is the bot creator required/expected to monitor the bot's talk page? Michepman (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit rate on this is so slow that I don't think it's really a "bot" problem in the traditional sense (e.g. with operator monitoring, etc) - even if it were a logged out bot, the operator wouldn't be expected to monitor the user talk:ip_address page - if you think this is actually a logged out bot, which bot do you think it is? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually unclear if it is a bot; I was just going off of the discussion above about automated editing. Michepman (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not a bot... their edits are indicative of someone who may be going a bit too fast and isn't paying attention to their edits and what they're doing (I haven't looked myself; I was simply helping this discussion by pointing to policy). We'd reach out to them on their user talk page like we would any other editor who we'd need to talk to. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing the whitespace in template parameters is a known side-effect of editors using the Wikipedia:VisualEditor, people. See phabricator:T179259 and discussions passim. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, well there you go. :-) Thank you, Uncle G, for adding this information to the discussion. I admit that I wasn't aware of this "side-effect" or issue myself; this is good to know for future reference. Looking at the diffs listed here, this would explain most of the edits in concern (other than some of the punctuation alterations maybe). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah As far as I can tell I don't think it explains the changing Latin to English and leaving a red template in the example I linked to above. MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: They are continuing to add/remove punctuation incorrectly, and there has been no communication. There are now about 30 articles, to which they have made the last edit, which are likely to need at least partial reversion. A block is desirable at this point. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I just reverted this IP's improper addition of apostrophes to decades (e.g. "1950s" to "1950's"). If it isn't intentional disruption, it's incompetence, and the lack of response leaves a block as the only remaining option. --Sable232 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Issued level-4 warning and reported to AIV. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism inspite of warnings

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

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

Process violations and canvassing at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CentralTime301

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bill Josephs and Palestine

Bill Josephs (talk · contribs) has, on a number of occasions, changed State of Palestine to Territory of Palestine, specifically on LGBT rights in the State of Palestine. There are currently discretionary sanctions on articles relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict, and he seems intent on making this article fall under the "broadly construed" umbrella imo. He's been warned several times, including once of the sanctions. - Frood (talk!) 05:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the edits made to LGBT rights in the State of Palestine by Bill Josephs have been disruptive, repeated, consistent, and have continued to occur despite numerous messages, warnings, and requests for him to stop. It's also clear that this disruption is unlikely to stop unless administrative actions are taken in order to intervene and set expectations. Due to the ongoing disruption reported here and what I've observed, I've imposed the use of discretionary sanctions and have topic banned the user from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict for three months. This will give Bill Josephs the opportunity to contribute positively elsewhere on Wikipedia, while imposing fair and necessary sanctions and actions to maintain an acceptable and collaborative editing environment without outright blocking the user. I'm hoping that this will put an end to the disruption and help Bill Josephs to grow and learn, and hopefully return after they've gained sufficient experience in order to appropriately contribute to this topic area. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ophelia Lovibond#Filmography

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

---

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

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

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

Impersonation by multiple IPs

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cls14 now claims to have retired from Wikipedia. I don’t think that should stop this investigation (since people retire and return all the time). The evidence here clearly establishes these accounts as socks of Cls14. Someone even gave him a friendly warning about it on his talk page, which he did not deny.[27] I recommend that remaining socks, if any, be indeffed (there may not be any; James Bowes is indeffed, and Libeyellow96 is under investigation), and that Cls14 be censured in whatever way is appropriate for a sockmaster. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Anon IP removing RS cites in order to violate BLP

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

---

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

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

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

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

Vandalism concerning the name of a family of unix based OSs

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide these racist edits

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide these racist edits

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

---

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

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

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

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

Using a talk page to attack an editor

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A light unto BMK's path, to drive away the dimness.-- Deepfriedokra

Please note this thread. I have no objection to the use of the quote I made on that page. A clubby chat, which tries to partially out me while inferring that I am an anti-Semite, and symptomatic of Wikipedia's failure to deal with that, amounts to an extended personal attack. NMMGG had a long history of arguing I am an anti-Semite and has been sanctioned for it. Nishidani (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Please don't forget to notify NMMNG of this thread.-- Deepfriedokra 06:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I must be dim: where, exactly, is the personal attack? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, I read the thread numerous times, wondering if the wrong link had been posted. Obviously the two participants knew who they were talking about, but I don't see any way that anybody else reading that thread could figure out that Nishidani was being referred to. If there's absolutely no mention of who the discussion is about, can there be a violation of WP:NPA? and if no one is identified, and insufficient hints have been dropped, how can there be outing? I've certainly have seen Nishidani's name many times before, but there was nothing on that thread which said to me "This is about Nishidani", and nothing there that I could identify as a "partial outing".

I think that Nishidani is going to have to explain this in more detail, but if you have to explain a personal attack and a "partial outing" in detail in order to have outsiders recognize them for what you say they are, how valid can those descriptions actually be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the verb would be "implying". Need clarification on the outing thing as well.-- Deepfriedokra 06:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Right: "I imply, you infer." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

We're here to write articles, not to pursue a grievance - consistently lost in arbitration- over several years to then retire in protest, and only come back when there is an opportunity to niggle at one's perceived (anti-Semitic) adversary. This is a matter of memory and context.NMMGG's innuendoes re my 'antisemitism' are legion, so I'll resist the temptation to list them per WP:TLDR.Bref

• 2013
• Advice Requested 2015

NMMGG has retired in protest from wikipedia and doesn’t edit it. He comes back every several months to harp on his theme, that wikipedia protects antisemites,(once mounting an attack page on me apropos that thesis) and I am, in this regard, a major problem. He now jumps at the quote SJ uses to divagate on his hobby horse.

• (a) "Jews must pass my test if they want my sympathy" quote.

This is an extremely malicious mischaracterization of the quote on Sir Joseph’s page. (note that quote should be linked. Ripping it out of the explanatory context in which it is embedded blinds the reader to its real or intended meaning. Sir Joseph should be asked to link that statement).

• (b) 'It seems like both the style and favorite topic of the guy who once said that Purim is a celebration of genocide.'

NMMGG made a case against me re Purim in 2013, and it apparently still rankles that, with the evidence there showing ‘my’ remark reflected mainstream scholarship, he lost it and got a sanction.

Where did I state I came from Australia? Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

But the quote is not attributed, how is someone to know that it is yours? And how is "mischaracterizing" a quote a personal attack on you, as opposed to... a mischaracterization of a quote? And per Purim: do you somehow think that everyone on Wikipedia is keeping track of your disputes, and that the mention of "Purim as genocide" is going to automatically be recognized as a reference to you? And again, how is a mischaracterization of something that you said -- if it is a mischaracterization -- a personal attack? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just so totally out of the loop that I can't see the violations you suggest, and an admin intimately familiar with every minute aspect of your editing and dispute history will feel differently, but I'm just not seeing any substance here. 07:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the premise is dicey: I Nishidani will immediately recognize that this is a personal slight against me, but it is not a personal attack in wiki terms because no one else will catch the allusions? Not that all this irks me. I regard it as the standard inability to read carefully what is written, and what it means. That annoys me.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry: could you please clarify who you are referring to when you write "the standard inability to read carefully what is written, and what it means"? And if "all this" doesn't "irk" you, why then did you file an AN/I report about it? That doesn't seem to track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The ability to read carefully and paraphrase neutrally what sources state is an integral part of our encyclopedic endeavor.This is a classic example of failure by contributing editors to do this, albeit on a talk page. To abandon wikipedia only return to make snippy comments offloading ancient grudges is pointless shitstirring.

I write (a) this, arguing that coherence in terms of a universal principle of human dignity must be the basic principle governing sensitivity to prejudice.

This is excerpted, shorn of its logical principle, to produce a quote specifying one instance of violating a universal principle.

(b ) Anyone who complains of anti-Semitism, while silently ignoring the massive daily evidence of the humiliations, harassment and violence dealt out on a systematic basis in Gaza and the West Bank, is ranting hollowly to my ear.

(c) That in turn is construed as my insinuating that

"Jews must pass my test if they want my sympathy"

This is typical of what the press, (notably in the Corbyn case) does in spinning an otherwise sensible concept, to make out its author bears some ethnic enmity. Editors here should not be playing POV games. I find the last comment ‘disturbing’. A statement on the principle of human rights is spun as an attack on 'Jews'.

In stating:

As long as some admins protect these people (perhaps mistakenly thinking they're supporting anti-Zionists, but at this point I doubt it), nothing will change. There needs to be some media attention and then outside pressure for anything to change here. </blockquote

NMMGG is airing the idea that wikipedia’s handling of anti-semitism, and its putative ‘protection’ of people like me, will only change if ‘outside pressure’ from the media noting the issue makes a fuss of it, to force a change. That is what Framgate is all about, and I read it in that context. People who leave wiki, with a grudge, don't edit, come back only to vent their rancor, and augur that media pressure force WP to intervene to fix the ostensible cause of their grievance, should be warned to do what they were warned earlier to do, lay off from this opportunistic niggling to create yet one more 'scandal'.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

And yet this putative scandal-mongering, deeply encoded, would have simply sat on a user's talk page, one with 136 watchers, unseen by the vast majority of Wikipedians, or seen and not understood, if you hadn't brought it to one of the highest profile pages on Wikipedia, with 7,703 watchers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please indicate which of the edits you reference refer to something occurring over the last year? I saw a couple going back to 2015, but what is happening now?-- Deepfriedokra 08:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

NMMGG essentially has not edited over the last year.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To editor Beyond My Ken: The talk page discussion refers to a quotation at the top of the talk page, of which the original can be found in seconds using the search facility. So it is not correct to say that nobody would know who it was about. Most regulars would correctly guess even before checking, as I did. Most regulars would also read it as a personal attack that was intended to be an implication of anti-semitism. I was thinking of bringing up this incident myself, not least because the talk page owner recently narrowly escaped a block over a similar personal attack. In that case the attacked user was named, but frankly I can't see the distinction between attacking a named person and attacking a person whose identity is trivial to determine (which, irrelevantly, is how libel laws in most countries operate too). Zero^talk 12:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but "You are an idiot" is a personal attack, "What you said is idiotic" isn't. "You are an anti-semite" is a personal attack, "Your views are anti-semitic" is not, and even less so when one has to go searching (no matter how "trivial") to find out who "you" is.

I think you overestimate how many people among the "regulars" keep track of any ongoing disputes between the editors involved, unless by "regulars" you don't mean "regular editors of Wikipedia" but "regular participants in Israel-Palestine editing." In determining what is and isn't a personal attack, one should, I think, use a "reasonable person" standard, but you seem to be defining a "person" as someone who holds specialized knowledge, not simply a "reasonable editor of Wikipedia", but a "reasonable editor of the Israel-Palestine subject area" (if there is such a thing). Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani is saying "This is fundamental to civilization, as Hillel the Elder understood in his statement at Shabbath folio:31a, 'What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation.'" This doesn't have anything to do with the topic of conversation. In this instance Nishidani is not addressing the topic of Zionism. Invoking the religious precept spoken by "Hillel the Elder" implicates the religion. This is apart from politics, the ostensible topic of the discussion. Nishidani wanders across an imaginary line separating religion and politics when they say "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow". That is Torah as opposed to Zionism. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To editor Beyond My Ken: Since an anti-semite is exactly someone who holds anti-semitic views (look in a dictionary), your claim that "your views are anti-semitic" is not a personal attack has no logical leg to stand on. The vast majority of "reasonable people" would take it as a personal insult and they would be right. What are you doing defending the indefensible? Zero^talk 18:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A person cannot change their being, they are always themselves, no matter what, but they can change their views, and many people do. I am not "defending the indefensible" (which by your standard would be a personal attack) I am pointing out that a person's views are not the person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• This has too long roots for me, and looking for past diffs is very exhausting at this time of night. I'm however pinging @El C: who has dealt with Sir Joseph's talkpage quotes and discussion of them before. I'm also going to alert Sir Joseph, who is surely involved in the dialogue he takes part in on his page. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

• Though not as egregious as the quote I removed, I find Sir Joseph's use of quotations, meant to depict his editorial opponents in a bad light, to be generally inappropriate and too adversarial. Especially, seeing that this is an editor who has been sanctioned for ARBPIA violations multiple times. If anything, they should aim to come across as more understated on this highly contentious front. El_C 19:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• What is wrong with that quote? I am not putting any words into Nishidani's mouth. He is saying that I am responsible for Israel and that I can't complain about antisemitism in my neighborhood until I do something about Israel. That seems to be the gist of his quote. Is there anything wrong with highlighting that viewpoint? I also have no control over what NMMNG says on my page, so I'm not sure what else to do here. I do find it interesting though that Nishidani is bringing an action considering that he has been warned repeatedly by admins about his conduct. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Also, I would just like to add, that yes, I wouldn't be walking around proud calling Purim a genocide as you do. Purim celebrates self-defense. I am not sure how a holiday where people were saved from destruction translates into genocide gets into your books, but that goes into your known biases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Invoking Purim is once again invoking religion, also known as Judaism. A discussion of Zionism is unlikely to involve events of millennia ago. Invoking Purim or Hillel the Elder in an argument about Zionism is off-topic and it crosses an invisible line between religion and politics. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Such no-context excerpts as part of inter-editorial disputes which pertain to ARBPIA, contribute to a toxic environment in this very contentious area. That is the problem. El_C 19:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nishidani himself posted the link [28] to his full quote, where he himself said the same thing, if you don't care about what is going on in Israel then it rings hollow. As you know from my talk page's big US flag, I live in the US and unless you think I have dual allegiance, I have no say on what goes on in Israel. So the quote on my page is in context, similar to other quotes on all the other pages on talk pages throughout Wikipedia. My quote says exactly what he means, that I can't complain about antisemitism in my community. (Have you looked at his talk page?) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• In any event, I'm not sure what @Nishidani: is asking for here against NMMNG. Can he clarify? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I care about what is going on in Israel — I also care about what is going on on Wikipedia, which is what this is about. Yes, I've seen their talk page. I'm not sure to what extent there is something inappropriate there due to the TLDR-nature of that piece. At a glance, it does not seem to invoke inter-editorial disputes specifically, unless I'm missing something. Again, if there are issues that pertain to racism, antisemitism or Holocaust denial, you are free to bring those up to review here. I think you will find that we take those concerns very seriously. El_C 19:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Besides his TLDR on top, if you continue his antisemitism thread, he says that Jews worldwide are responsible for Israel's actions, and that if a Jew in London is spat upon by someone in London we need to recognize that an Arab is spat upon by a Jew in Israel. And he goes further. I do recall some Representative in the US getting in trouble for saying something similar to that. I don't live in Israel and have no control over what Israel does, so that quote on my talk page is on context of his thinking and a pretty bad thinking. He seems to confuse ethnicity, religion and nation a bit in his screed. If a Jew is spat on in London by some anti-Semite, they do well to seek redress and punitive costs; but if that person, on hearing that Christian priests are customarily spat on in Jerusalem by Haredi passers-by, can't make the connection between what befell them, and what befalls non-Jews, then the outrage is not grounded in a universal moral sensibility: it is personal, and, often, ethnic. You seem to throw around toxicity a bit, but I'm not the right target for that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• More importantly since we're way off-topic here, Nishidani continues to refer to the whole Labour antisemitism issue as a smear campaign, when I don't think even Corbyn himself will do that. Corbyn has admitted that there are issues and he said that Labour is taking steps to deal with antisemitism in the Labour party, but Nishidani says it's all a smear. The UK Labour Party has a problem with a massive persistent press campaign asserting, contrafactually, that, compared to all other political parties, it uniquely has an 'antisemitic' problem. this challenges widestream RS, including Guardian, NYtimes, BBC, CNN, etc. Further, Nishidani continues to say "impeccable scholarly works, such as Mearsheimer and Walt's 2007 book" when that book has been widely condemned as antisemitic by many scholars. To claim that it is impeccable is ludicrous. I know that Nishidani usually gets a wide berth because he usually writes a huge wall of text, but he edits with a huge bias and it does need to stop. It's one thing to be biased on a talk page, but not on the mainspace, (especially when you say you're retired half a dozen times). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nishidani has a habit of putting down his fellow editors, making denigrating comments about them, doubting their logical faculties, general competence and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, using strong language (to say the least). This has been pointed out to him many times, and objected to. Nishidani continues this behavior unchanged. It is time the community put a stop to this behavior, and this lame attempt to silence his opponents should backfire on him. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• • ...and No More Mr Nice Guy has a long, looooooong history of trying to paint Nishidani as an anti−Semite, (ie. a racist). Debresser: I hope you remember Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Debresser: you called me and Nishidani for "anti-Jewish" (and in my part of the world that is the same as being a racist), I asked you to withdraw it and apologise, or show how I was anti-Jewish. You did neither, and you know how that ended.
  • I think this report should have been filed at AE, too. I thought of doing that myself, but to do that the editor in question has to be alerted in the last year (?) (AFAIK!...it is rather difficult to keep up with the rules). Anyway, I have now alerted NMMNG.
  • What I think is, well, nasty, about this last spat, is that NMMNG basically said he has retired (he has less than 50 edits this last year), well ok. But then he return solely to spread these poisonous allegation about an editor. (And I would guess 100% of the editors in the I/P area who sees this knows exactly who they were talking about: this has been going on for years.) (Not that I'm impressed with Sir Joseph's behaviour, either). So is this what we have to look forward to: retired editors returning once or twice a year in order to spread some shit around the IP area? How fun that will be</sarcasm> Huldra (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Huldra, Where would we be if people who retire never come back to edit?
      • User:Sir Joseph, of course retired editors "in good standing" are welcome back....but the same rules/question should apply to them, as to any other editor; namely: Are they here to write an encyclopaedia? ..or are they here for the disruption? What is the "signal/noice" ratio? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Gravedancing / Ignoring talk page request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangeblock request

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

I'm requesting a rangeblock on [29]. One IP is blocked. User is continuing distribution, adding false info about movies and tv. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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