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

User:Dommiraubi continues disruptive behavior despite previous warnings

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

Dommiraubi continues to edit without communicating via edit summary or talk page despite warning from OlEnglish (talk · contribs) as seen here. examples include:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Dommiraubi has previously been reported and blocked for this behavior here. Dommiraubi has also once again used another wiki article as a reference ([4]), something I brought to admin attention before. -- Bait30  ^Talk? 05:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I found these repeated edits at K. S. Gopalakrishnan (musician) where Dommiraubi adds the same link to an article as a reference: 1 + 2 + 3. The last of those was on 30 November 2019. Is there something more recent? I see the creation of a new article with a circular reference on 22 December 2019. Previous ANI reports were: August 2019 and December 2019. An indef might be appropriate if there is no undertaking soon. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that Dommiraubi has continued to edit, and continued to fail to communicate, but their edits since their most recent warning appear to be constructive. This edit uses a weak-looking source to report the subject's recent death, but I was able to find further confirmation of this by searching online, so I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on your adminship Rosguill! I just want to add that yes, Dommiraubi frequently makes constructive edits, especially in regards to recent deaths. One thing I did notice is that most of Dommiraubi's disruptive edits relate to Classical Indian music and playback singers such as [5] and [6]. Maybe a topic ban would isolate the disruptive edits from the constructive edits? Idk, just a suggestion.  Bait30  ^Talk? 03:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

​​​Does anyone have any thoughts on my suggestion? I'm still relatively new here so I'm not sure exactly what the proper actions would be. However, Dommiraubi has shown that they can still make the same type of disruptive and unexplained edits despite admin warning, so it feels strange to simply ignore it just because he/she also happens to make constructive edits.  Bait30  ^Talk? 05:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Bait30, sanctions on Wikipedia are generally preventative, not punitive, and last I checked Dommiraubi hasn't made an unconstructive edit since this thread was opened. At this point, I think it's ok to take no action, but if they make another unconstructive edit while this is open, or if they're brought to ANI again for similar issues after this discussion is closed, then I think a block is unfortunately in order on WP:CIR grounds. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks!  Bait30  ^Talk? 06:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Given Dommiraubi's long track record of warnings and blocks here, I'd say he has earned an indefinite block the second he messes up again. Not worth the trouble. SolarFlash^{Let's talk about it} 01:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the messages above were posted Dommiraubi has continued to make edits with various problems, and has still made no attempt at all to respond to any messages. She or he has received numerous messages warning that continuing in the same way is likely to lead to being blocked, and has once actually been given a short block, but nothing makes any difference. It has come to the stage where a block is the only thing which has any chance at all of getting a response, so I have blocked the account indefinitely. Naturally, I hope that "indefinitely" will not mean "for ever", and I have tried in my block message to encourage the editor to reply, so that an unblock can follow. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding dubiously-sourced material despite repeated requests to stop

• Martinthewriter (talk · contribs)

This editor showed up last month and reinserted highly dubious content[7] (in one case based on a source that clearly got the information in question from the Wikipedia article) that had been removed from the article Mottainai almost two years earlier by a consensus on the talk page. He then edit-warred over it[8] while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page (Ctrl+F "personal opinion" here). He threatened to canvas !votes with a biased RFC question, which I told him not to do so without consulting me but he did anyway.

The RFC ended a month later with minimal uninvolved participation, but most favouring the replacement of what was there with either a fuller and better-sourced etymology section or something like the bare-bones etymology that was there following the February 2018 discussion. (The simple !vote count was tainted somewhat by two bad-faith editors who showed up because of their history with me, but clearly had not actually looked at the content.)[9] MTW then tried to reopen the RFC despite it being obvious no one new was coming to support him (literally no one had supported his "version A" in three weeks, with almost everyone new supporting "version C"). My only guess as to his motivation for this move would be to make me and others have to wait another month to remove the dubious content from the article. I reverted, for which action Edwardx (talk · contribs) thanked me (so I can only assume my action was procedurally sound; if not, I apologize). MTW's next action was to restore the dubious content.[10] I originally drafted this report several days ago, which had seemingly convinced him to drop it for the time being, but he returned on Christmas Eve to renew his bogus accusation that my edits (accurate representation of reputable scholarly sources) constitute "personal opinions".

It seems like there is no end in sight, so could someone please block the user? Or do we need to have a TBAN discussion? The editor has done basically nothing on the project for the last 45 days except troll me (if you read through the discussion it should be obvious that he isn't pushing a consistent POV; he just wants content out when I want it in -- Ctrl+F "etymology" to see how his view changed exactly when mine did -- and wants it in when I want it out, even when overwhelming talk page consensus, an honest reading of what the sources say, and simple common sense support my view) so an editing restriction seems like the wrong move here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, without speculating on why this didn't work, I'm just going to say I withdraw it and am taking some time off from editing Wikipedia. I wish you all a merry Christmas, and possibly a happy New Year if my break lasts that long. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm unwithdrawing the above. Of the relatively large number of uninvolved editors, only two have expressed substantial disagreement with me, and of those two one has only 300 edits to his name and the other is apparently nursing a grudge against me for some issue his repeatedly refused to elaborate on. (The latter also has a history of disruptively ignoring the substance of ANI reports with bogus "content dispute" dismissals, at least in specialized/scholarly topic areas like this one.) I only retracted the above in the hopes that the reprisals would stop and the thread would be closed, and after well over two days this has not happened -- and at this point it would be unfair if the opinions of Ryk, Reyk, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, SN54129 and Bonadea were dismissed just because at one point early on I was tired of being harassed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• comment From the talk page, I can definitely see major problems with Hijiri88's tendentious editing. He's quite dismissive of the side that has the facts on their side. Hard to say what is best to do, but there's no cause to sanction Martinthewriter here. Krow750 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable minds may differ. In this case, "has the facts on their side" is clearly in dispute. - Ryk72 ^talk 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Martinthewriter hasn't misrepresented sources. Firstly, the book Hijiri88 just added from 2018 is a different source from the 2014 article Martinthewriter used. Secondly, the 2018 book never says that mottainai isn’t Buddhist nor does it say that its meaning concerning regret of waste hasn't been connected to Buddhism. What Martinthewriter added earlier was 100% in accordance with the sources. Hijiri88 is taking a different source, interpreting it in a wildly imaginative way, and using his own creativity to somehow accuse Martinthewriter of misrepresentation. This is exactly the reason why Hijiri88 has been repeatedly accused of editing from his personal opinion. That's exactly what he just did! It's Hijiri88 who is clearly pushing a POV by repeatedly denying the Buddhist roots of mottainai, despite overwhelming material arguing the opposite, and falsely claiming that the 2014 article did not contain quotes that it actually did.[11] Hijiri88 even cites himself as Hijiri 2019[12] as if his opinion is better than the historians. If Hijiri88 isn't going to be sanctioned, this thread really can be closed. Martinthewriter is doing a great job and I can guarantee you he isn't going to be sanctioned here. Krow750 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Krow750: Martinthewriter hasn't misrepresented sources. That's an incredibly creative interpretation of the evidence, and one virtually no one who has looked at said evidence seems to agree with. Did you read through the analysis of the Genpei issue and determine that Taylor 2015 wasn't a circular source? Did you read Siniawer 2014 and determine based on careful analysis that Siniawer agreed with the view she was attributing to Yamaori, thereby justifying Martin's citing Siniawer 2014 to support presenting Yamaori's views as fact? Have you located evidence that Shuto and Eriguna 2013 is not an article about kindergarten teaching, written by a child psychologist and a kindergarten teacher, and entirely inappropriate as a source for Japanese religious history? At this point in this ANI thread, you really should either (a) change your stance due to the evidence you hadn't read earlier and the overwhelming consensus against your view or (b) just cut your losses and leave. Doubling down makes you look WP:NOTHERE, and could potentially subject you to other editors monitoring your behaviour to make sure other instances of such disruption don't occur in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Something really needs to be done about this. This edit clearly shows that Martin will support anything, even ridiculously bad content edits, as long as I oppose them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, reluctantly. I do not often support sanctions, but unfortunately, Martinthewriter shows no signs of understanding that scholars & publications are not necessarily reliable outside their fields of expertise, or even engaging with discussions about such. Additionally, their use of sources displays a pattern of cherrypicking "deep cuts" from within sources, ignoring the context of the cherrypicked material and ignoring the main aspects of the source.
  e.g. a) Siniawer 2014 & 2018, excellent works by an historian; reliable and as yet underused; overall narrative is of a deliberate rebranding of Mottainai during the early 21st century - selects to include a quote from Yamaori Tetsuo to support "Mottainai is a Buddhist term"; neglects to include that Siniawer places this as part of that deliberate rebranding, describing it as "problematic". b) Shuto & Eriguna 2013, a departmental bulletin by an educational psychologist & a kindergarten teacher; not necessarily reliable; overall paper is about how children understand the concept of wastefulness - selects a piece of the "Background" section (not reliable) to support "Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage."; neglects to include by whom, neglects to include that Shuto & Eriguna reference their text to "Hirose, Y. (2008). Social Psychology on environmentally conscious behavior. Kyoto: Kitaohjishobou. (Japanese)", which should be used in preference if suitable. After investigation by Hijiri88, Hirose appears to also be a psychologist (environmental & social), not a linguist, historian or scholar of religion.
  Each of these, and other sources, has had to be argued over extensively on the article Talk page; now in excess of 45,000 words.
  The camel's back straw, for mine, is this comment, which shows that Martin will continue to filibuster the Talk page until the article reflects their desired version. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that Ryk and I strongly disagree with each other regarding the viability of the proposed edit on which the above diff was a !vote, and Ryk was involved in this thread for five days before deciding to support my original proposal; I add this clarification because there have been a number of accusations of cronyism and canvassing throughout this dispute (here, here and here, for example). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – per the OP's opening statement this revolves around a content dispute (quoting from the opening sentence of that opening statement "... reinserted highly dubious content ..." – my emphasis), and after withdrawing and re-activating the request this still appears to be the case ("... Martin will support ... content edits ...", original emphasis, see 01:05, 31 December 2019 comment above, written after reactivating the request). E.g. this diff is given as a support for presumed misconduct, while that seems to all extents and purposes an entirely appropriate contribution on content (whether one agrees with that content or not), including a constructive discussion of appropriate methods to settle content disputes, at the talk page of the Mottainai article. See the #Comment subsection below for my thoughts on attempts to use ANI for settling content disputes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I argue that Hijiri88 should not continue to edit the article on mottainai. My edits prove that mottainai is a word of Buddhist origin, and I don't think that's as controversial as Hijiri88 claims. One editor said, concerning the Buddhist etymology, "Any fool, including myself, can type mottainai and Buddhist into Google Scholar and see that it's, at least, a significant minority view." The bigger problem here is Hijiri88's "battleground mentality".

The admin Floquenbeam recommended a request for comment to solve the issue[13], so I created a request for comment based on the only two versions of the article that were available at the time. Most respondents preferred to keep the info on Buddhist etymology, but Hijiri88 skewed the request for comment by threatening anyone who disagreed with the highly dubious edits he was making. Instead of productive dialogue, he keeps telling me "I will be requesting that you be blocked" and "the only people who could not see this after it is pointed out to them would be paid editors with a vested interest in spreading misinformation." He told Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) "I will be requesting that your previous one-year block be reinstated, this time indefinitely" and "So, you're doubling down on your revenge-trolling?". When IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs) made useful commentary, he said, "Stop trolling" and "I will ask you to take this last chance to demonstrate your good faith by retracting your !vote". He unjustifiably told Margin1522 (talk · contribs) "if you don't edit Wikipedia anymore, why are you even here? Why not go violate copyright on some other website?"

Also, Hijiri88 was warned about edit warring[14], but is still reverting now with offensive edit summaries.[15][16]

I think the talk page discussion establishes Hijiri88's problematic original research and misreading of sources, but it becomes a big issue when he uses harassment to impose these changes on the article. I propose that this user no longer be allowed to edit this article.Martinthewriter (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hijiri88's collaboration on Wikipedia has been troubled to say the least, so to come here demanding a straight block of another editor is going to require some investigation. At the moment what I am seeing is a straight content dispute and the venue for that is WP:DRN. Or we can handle this here and now with an iBan for both editors and a T-ban for them both to the disputed article. Whatever, I'm not going to issue any blocks or untangle this mess to establish who is right and who is wrong - let DRN do that first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: An IBAN wouldn't resolve the issue, though. Multiple other editors (not pinging for fear of canvassing accusations, but their names are Imaginatorium, Curly Turkey, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, Ryk72 and HAL333) have already voiced support for my position (the article should summarize the relevant scholarship and not include misrepresentation or citation of unreliable sources) -- does MTW need to be banned from interacting with them as well?

A one-way IBAN might prevent MTW from trolling me on this or other articles further, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that he intends to follow me to other articles, so a page-ban would be better.

And what good would DRN do that the RFC hasn't already? If I voluntarily change my position to accommodate MTW (as I already did), he will just change his position to whatever the opposite one of my current one is. All DRN typically does is allow both parties to a dispute to express their opinions, maybe get one new constructive outside opinion, with no solid dispute resolution method if those opinions are intractable, and MTW has already demonstrated that he is more interested in disagreeing with me than in pushing any particular content point (I have made concession after concession on issues like the length of the etymology section, the discussion of Buddhism, and the citation of Siniawer, but he has consistently shifted his position so the argument can continue).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Martinthewriter isn't the one with a long history of unsociable behaviour. I wasn't talking about a one-way ban, I was talking about keeping you both away from each other and both of you away from the article. Traditionally iBans and T-bans need some community input but If I were you Hijiri88, I wouldn't belabour the issue too hard otherwise there might be a sting in the tail which an admin can handle unilaterally. Take it to DRN first and see what they say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I figured someone might bring up my "long history", so for what it's worth I have filed a grand total of two ANI reports in the last year.[17][18] I am not sure exactly what history of mine you are referring to, but my only negative interaction directly with you in the past, as far as I remember, was in the 2013 Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) issue,[19] when, if I recall, my "unsociable behaviour" was mostly me expressing frustration that you were being an irresponsible admin and refusing to look at the evidence of disruptive behaviour that was presented to you.

In this case I have been busting my ass for the better part of two months trying to accommodate this editor while also maintaining the integrity of our article and its sourcing standards, but this approach has not been working. If you are not actually going to click on the diffs provided, I would ask why you are even commenting here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Martinthewriter's proposal, which boils down to topic-banning Hijiri88 from the mottainai article, if I understand correctly. I'm not going into all of the details why (will just elaborate four points below). I've largely stopped my attempts to improve the mottainai article, awaiting the time that Hijiri88 would no longer be editing that article (and its talk page), while as long as that continues any attempt to improve the article is futile. Here are my points:
  1. Despite my warning (earliest one here), Hijiri88 continued to WP:BLUDGEON every participant in the RFC on article versions who happened to not agree with them (all listed diffs after I had warned Hijiri88 to stop bludgeoning):
     • Bludgeoning my "bludgeon" comment
     • Bludgeon on Martinthewriter's first comment after I gave the "bludgeon" warning
     • Bludgeoning IvoryTower123's first contribution to the RfC
     • Bludgeoning Levivich's !vote in the RfC, piling on after Nishidani had already replied to Levivich's position
     • Bludgeon after SMcCandlish seemed not too sure about his original !vote (that first !vote had been favourable to Hijiri88's position, so had not been bludgeoned)
     • Bludgeon after HAL333's first contribution to the RfC
  2. Hijiri88's continued WP:REFACTORing of what followed after my first !vote in the RfC made a reasonable exchange of ideas quite impossible:
     • Hijiri88 sectioning of what off what followed on my original !vote
     • Hijiri88 adding a new disparaging comment under my original !vote
     • After I had moved that comment to the Discussion area, to join it together with the rest of what followed my original !vote, and after I had extended my original !vote, being requested to comment on some additional versions Hijiri88 blugeoning my extended !vote, and again
     • Hijiri88 moving back his disparaging comment from the Discussion area to immediately under my original !vote
  3. Hijiri88 should have been the last one to assess the outcome of the RfC, yet that's exactly what Hijiri88 did (see Talk:Mottainai#Consensus?), despite the tally not showing that the version which Hijiri88 preferred (and implemented [sic], even edit-warring over it [20], [21]) was what most participants in the RfC would have preferred. Hijiri88 had a very simple workaround for that disparity between the RfC tally and the forced outcome they implemented: call everyone who disagreed with them a troll (see e.g. edit summaries in the edit-warring, links given in previous parenthesis, to force their outcome in mainspace).
  4. Hijiri88 intimated several times, on the article's talk page, that what Eiko Maruko Siniawer had written about mottainai was not correctly represented in Wikipedia's article. Afaics that is indeed the case, and I said so on the article's talk page: "imho the article should give a good summary of the main points of Siniawer's analyses. Siniawer seems a decent author on the topic." It doesn't seem too difficult to write a decent summary of Siniawer's views in the article, and I would volunteer to do so. I can only come to the conclusion that Hijiri88 didn't do so thus far, nor anyone else, and that no matter how long we wait, Hijiri88 is not going to remedy Wikipedia's article in that sense. With Hijiri88's present hold over the article (which can only be remedied by removing them as editor of the article and its talk page afaics) it also seems unlikely that Hijiri88 would allow anyone else (they're consistently called trolls by Hijiri88 remember) to write up such decent summary of Siniawer's views in the Wikipedia article.

There's more I could explain in detail (e.g. Hijiri88's forum shopping, etc, etc), but I think I've made my point. I'd suggest Hijiri88 not to bludgeon this extended comment of mine on this noticeboard, but instead, for instance, demonstrate they can provide a good summary of Siniawer's views on the mottainai topic, which could be used in Wikipedia's mainspace. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC) – Stricken my "support", in favour of my proposal in the #Comment section below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, despite my posting a statement of wikibreak on my talk page and my withdrawing this ANI report, others have apparently continued to seize on the chance to badmouth me on ANI. I do still intend to stay away from the site for a few days, and I don't intend to pursue further sanctions given the mess this has become, but I will defend myself against Francis's lies and half-truths if he is going to refuse to retract them. Needless to say, virtually everything in the above comment is either (a) completely untrue or (b) a gross distortion of the truth. Two of the worst examples are addressed here

I didn't "bludgeon" anyone, and responded politely as far as patience would let me to editors who both agreed and disagreed with me -- I will leave it to SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) to dismiss the about untruth that he had become less supportive of my preferred version of the article;

and here

Francis Schonken is not now, nor has he ever been, interested in improving the article, and his taking credit for my proposal to give a fair summary of Siniawer 2014 -- posted almost immediately after I finally gained access to the source -- is disgusting and offensive; I have put hours and hours of painstaking research into building the article, while Francis has made one minor edit to the article almost two years ago[22] and has used that as an excuse to post no less than 18 times on the talk page, mostly making snide remarks about me that have nothing to do with the substance of the article.

Do I need to go through the rest point by point?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The proposed paragraph is largely insufficient as a summary of Siniawer's writing on the mottainai topic, as I said & explained at Talk:Mottainai#Consensus?
2. I'd suggest Hijiri88 stop interpreting and implementing what they call consensus (and usually only reflects their own ideas forced on others), at least as long as ""has the facts on their side" is clearly in dispute" (as Ryk72 put it above).
3. For the time being I see no reason whatsoever to withdraw anything of what I wrote above, instead I'd ask Hijiri88 to go through the entire Talk:Mottainai page and WP:STRIKE whatever denigrating comments they gave there about fellow editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC) – Stricken suggestions in #2 and #3, in favour of my proposal in the #Comment section below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

So ... is anyone going to reinstate Francis Schonken's recently expired year-long block for this blatant IDHT and disruptive pestering? He was essentially blocked for refusing to get the point, and then almost immediately after his block expired he tracked me down and proceeded to not get the point again, as demonstrated by the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Apropos #2, I think that it's clear from Hijiri88's initial post in the "Consensus?" section (and indeed from the question mark itself), that they are asking if a consensus has formed, not declaring that one has formed. I do not see that this is problematic. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 implemented their view on the outcome of the RfC by edit-warring (diffs given above, #3 of my first contribution to this section), whether or not they stated explicitly that that was how they saw the outcome of the RfC – the language they used in the edit summaries of these diffs is explicit enough: anyone thinking otherwise is, in their view, a troll or some such otherwise negligible contributor. That's far below what is expected from a contributor by behavioural policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I see a gap of some days between the start of the "Consensus?" section and those edits, and note that during that time at least two other editors opined that there had been a consensus reached, and that it favoured the version implemented.[23][24] - Ryk72 ^talk 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "I see a gap (etc)" – what are you trying to say: that it is OK to call co-editors trolls because there is some sort of gap in time? No, that is not a justification – it is just wriggling to find a reason to defend the indefensible: Hijiri88's behaviour was far below what is acceptable per Wikipedia's behavioural policies. I've given the diffs, read the edit summaries of these diffs: unacceptable, period. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No. It was implied that the editor had unilaterally declared a consensus and implemented their preferred version. I do not believe the evidence supports such. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Francis, your own behaviour (including what could be politely referred to as trolling due to the absence of any conceivable good-faith alternative -- worse descriptions for the same behaviour could, depending on interpretation, include "far-right nationalist POV-pushing", "deliberate battleground behaviour" and "stalking") has been far, far worse, and is especially surprising coming from someone who recently came off a year-long block that had been put in place for refusing to get the message of a previous long block that had expired only 11 days prior.

You can either stop engaging in behaviour for which "trolling" is the most civil possible description, or you can stop trying to get people sanctioned for desperately trying to assume good faith even long after you've drained all their patience: you cannot have it both ways.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal. Clearly inequitable. In so far as there is blame to be apportioned, and I am not yet convinced that sanctions of any kind are warranted, it would be grossly unfair for it to be laid entirely at the feet of this one editor. They have outlined clear reasons as to why content should or should not be included; opposing editors appear to have failed to engage with those reasons. - Ryk72 ^talk 20:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  Re. "opposing editors appear to have failed to engage with those reasons" – the main reason for that is quite ostensibly Hijiri88 behaviour towards fellow editors (see above): if they can't write two paragraphs in a reply to an editor they disagree with without lashing out at such fellow editor for being a troll, being otherwise incompetent or whatever, it is Hijiri88 who buries reasonable discussion in a marinade of rationale (i.e. the "ad hominem" rationale) which one should not engage with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hijiri found himself alone against several editors who have a minor, negligent or zero competence in Japanese, let alone Japanese scholarship. He has proved by sedulous source scrutiny to be right in most cases on the talk page, but finds himself outvoted. It's true his style is often annoyingly bludgeoning, and I have often remonstrated with him to not waste such enormous efforts on arguing with people who have no intention of listening, esp. when their competence is just googling key words and reading around a bit without an indepth knowledge of the contexts. I do wish Hijiri would stop wasting his and my, for one. fucking time by allowing himself to be sucked into useless TLDR talk pages. But, you know with him, that any page's sourcing will be minutely checked, even to the extent of him making library searches to ascertain exactly what primary sources say, as opposed to what skimpy unprofessional secondary sources report. I can't say that of most editors who get into disputes on this topic area with him. He really however should take a break and think over why anyone would want to waste their lives arguing in defense of the obvious when it is not going to run on this or that page due to the contingencies of random curiosity by editors visiting it. It's up to him to wake up and the personal cost of dedication to minutiae on Wikipedia, when he will often be overruled by disattentiveness. He should not be punished by a rackety arbitration process not aware of what is at stake, simply because he happens to be right but is ignored by editors who dislike his argumentative attitude, and don't evaluate precisely the value of hgis input on articles. It's all very Framish, if on a minor scale. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose very strongly. Hijiri is competent, which is (or ought to be) the most important thing here, and I fail to see anything other than pretty mild expressions of very understandable frustration in what is linked and quote above. Also, what Ryk72 and Nishidani says. --bonadea contributions talk 11:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• 'Oppose per Ryk. ——SN54129 11:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RANDY. Reyk _YO! 12:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposals, because a block isn't how we handle such matters (the OP was a bit over the top), but this is nothing like a WP:BOOMERANG (Francis Schonken's counter-proposal is even more off-kilter). A topic-ban might be appropriate for Martinthewriter. This kind of says it all: "My edits prove that mottainai is a word of Buddhist origin". One's edits don't prove anything; sources do, and the sources on the matter are not in agreement. I arrived at that article in response to a WP:FRS RfC notice, and have no particular interest in the topic. A review of the talk-page activity demonstrates that Martinthewriter has been rather tendentious about it, and only wants to accept the view in particular sources (WP:CHERRYPICKING). As for Francis Schonken's big rant up there (and continued below), it's obviously motivated by old-history animosities, and someone just returning from a quite lengthy block is in no position to be taken seriously in criticizing others' behavior, and it's hypocritical to label Hijiri88 as combative and ad hominem in the same breath as spinning his every post as "bludgeoning", over and over again like a chant. While I agree with H88's decision to take a wikibreak, maybe F.S. needs one as well. H88 is correct that F.S. is misrepresenting what the diffs show. For example, I did not waffle at all on my support for "version C", I simply added (after "Version E" was posted) that "Version E" might be acceptable, with certain changes, while still explicitly preferring "Version C."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I wouldn't mind Martin getting a TBAN or a PBAN. I just think it's unnecessary red tape (how many usernames taking up space at WP:RESTRICT belong to SPAs or editors who have since been indefinitely blocked or site-banned?) for an editor who is not so much pushing a particular POV as changing his positions constantly in order to be as annoying as possible to the editors he doesn't like. To give another example (separate from the "etymology" one given above): the "personal opinion" thing doesn't actually help in advancing the far-right nationalist POV most of his article edits lean toward, but he has repeated it seven times nonetheless. Most of my historic edits in the "Japanese nationalism" area have seen me on the other side, as Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture will attest, so Martin knows my personal opinion actually has nothing to do with it -- he has just been repeating the comment for sole purpose of annoying me, and while a page ban would ameliorate the problem it likely wouldn't solve it, as Martin would either follow me to a different article (I've written hundreds) or find a different editor to badger. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OP on wikibreak

Hijiri88, the OP of this ANI section announced their wikibreak, just before editing this noticeboard at 07:52, with a

Fuck it. ... [25]

Imho a sad spectacle underlining the contempt which the editor blatantly shows towards Wikipedia and its editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• That's a pretty imaginative interpretation. Reyk _YO! 16:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• My interpretation is that Hijiri88 realized they had lost perspective and that they were thrashing about hurtfully and really need a breather. I think they sometimes get a little overwrought, but that they care deeply and that makes it worse. Perhaps they just need a vacation.-- Deepfriedokra 08:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• After their last comment above (BTW, just after I suggested they make content discussions a little less ad hominem), I'd say: definitely needs a break. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC) – Update: see #Comment section below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Re: "That's a pretty imaginative interpretation" – Indeed it is. While H88 can be abrasive, so can F.S., including in this very thread. In my experience, H88 is deeply committed to the encyclopedia's accuracy, and is the furthest thing from "contempt[ous] ... toward Wikipedia". Like some of the rest of us (myself included), H88 does not suffer fools or PoV-pushers lightly. Any contempt that H88 evidences is in that direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Someone close this now, please. The OP has struck his complaint and proven yet again that not even in this season of goodwill is he able to participate civilly and without personal attacks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Kudpung, I would appreciate it if you struck the above offensive and groundless remark about me. hI was forced to come back and address the personal attacks that were made against me. I can understand if you are not going to either refrain from commenting on ANI threads without clicking on the diffs or actually click the diffs and act accordingly, but to attack an editor like this is clearly inappropriate, whatever the calendar date. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note I've unstricken my complaint, given that Kudpung has refused to comply with my request that he withdraw the above personal attack while the (worse) attacks from Francis have continued, and more than two days have passed without any sign of the thread being closed, but with other editors showing up and, almost uniformly, agreeing with my complaint (or at least disagreeing with Francis/Martin), who probably shouldn't have their commentary ignored just because two days ago I was too tired and gutless to defend myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: You commented a lot early on in this thread, apparently motivated by your own past history with me personally more than a sober analysis of the evidence presented (which issue I will attempt to address separately at a later date per WP:ADMINACCT -- my already-drafted message, which blames you for the failure of this thread to accomplish anything, is now woefully outdated). Since you stopped commenting, a relatively large number of editors have commented, and they overwhelmingly disagree with you on the substance. Would you care to strike your de facto !vote in the above subsection pending your own careful analysis of the substance of this dispute (which hasn't been a "content dispute" outside the scope of ANI since November 15) or finish doing said analysis and modify/clarify your opinion accordingly? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88, Until you brought it up, I had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of a previous interaction with you so many years ago. Your outrage and comments are borderline personal attacks and harassment. I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. I am not going to be bullied by you into commenting further on this issue in which my comment or recommendation was to close it. Whether my admin colleagues have agreed with it or not (see Phil Bridger immediately below) is not for you to decide and I will not be striking anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Umm ... how can you say you had absolutely no recollection of your previous interaction with me, when you said things like Hijiri88's collaboration on Wikipedia has been troubled to say the least, Martinthewriter isn't the one with a long history of unsociable behaviour and [Hijiri88 has] proven yet again that not even in this season of goodwill is he able to participate civilly and without personal attacks. Phil's comment was obviously motivated 100% by the status quo of the thread at the time he posted it (two users had supported a boomerang proposal, no one had said anything otherwise, and I had withdrawn my complaint and posted that I was on a wikibreak); the same excuse cannot be made for your comments, since you repeatedly (in all three of your comments) honed in on some undisclosed past "disruptive behaviour" on my part. Indeed, Your outrage and comments are borderline personal attacks and harassment. I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. is the same thing again: WP:WIAPA clearly defines such [a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence as personal attacks, and they are extremely unbecoming of an admin such as yourself. Your filibustering ANI threads that happen to have been opened by me (an editor you clearly don't like, even though you have refused to disclose why this is the case) regardless of all the evidence presented and all the commentary coming from other users you apparently don't think are scum not worth listening to is downright disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I second the proposal to close this. Keeping it open serves no useful purpose, and hopefully the discussion so far has shown people that, however frustrating it might be, even if an editor is in the right consensus might go the other way. That's just something we need to accept, and get on with more important things in life - in my case playing with my baby grandson. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a balance, however, between WP:TRUTH and WP:ENC, and the latter is ultimately more important. See WP:FALSECONSENSUS and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. It is not okay for a broken pseudo-consensus to result in WP distributing misinformation. It may not need a particular editor to address it, especially in a hotheaded mood, but it does need to be addressed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

    FWIW, that last sentence is exactly why I came here; if Kudpung or Krow750 is willing to monitor the article and keep Martin and Francis in check (and keep this bogus abuse of sources out of the article), I would be very happy to step away. But given that, as a direct response to this ANI discussion, Francis is now threatening to distort the article further (by dismissing the premier dictionary of the Japanese language as a source for a dictionary definition), and Kudpung has essentially denied that there is an issue with these editors' content edits, I'm reluctant to do so. (Hundreds of articles written by the blocked editor Enkyo2 still cite an unreliable source more than six years after Kudpung refused to recognize the issue with that editor based on his own unexplained assumption of bad faith on my part -- more than six years later, exactly the same thing has been happening here!) I really don't understand why the community can't be bothered page-banning an editor who has engaged in nothing but disruptive behaviour on the article for a month and a half so I don't have to do this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

    The "fate of the article and its contents" matter, as it were, doesn't strike me as an ANI (disciplinary) issue, but more of a WP:RSN or WP:NORN one. As for the first part (the hounding thing), that would be a disciplinary matter but would need more evidence than problems at one article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hijiri88, Until you brought it up, I had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of a previous interaction with you so many years ago - or even your name. Your outrage and persistent comments about my participation in this ANI case or my previous admin work are borderline personal attacks and harassment (sanctionable issues). I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. Whether my experienced and respected colleagues have agreed with my suggestions with or not ( Phil Bridger, SMcCandlish ) is not for you to decide and I will not be striking anything. I am not going to be bludgeoned by you into commenting further on this issue in which my last recommendation was to close it or take it elsewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The above IDHT (obvious misrepresentation of what SMcC said, for instance) is downright jaw-dropping coming from an experienced admin such as yourself. Your referring to SMcC and Phil as my experienced and respected colleagues (emphasis added) is unusual -- are you using "colleagues" to refer to your fellow Wikipedians, insinuating that I am not part of the Wikipedian community and do not deserve your respect, or are you referring to the admin corps and incorrectly believe SMcC is a sysop? Either way, it doesn't look good. Moreover, I would appreciate it if in the future you would not ping me twice with simultaneous comments that have identical opening sentences. I very nearly did not read the above, as I assumed based on the notices I received that you had inadvertently posted the same thing twice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, your claiming you didn't recognize my name (the only difference between the opening sentences, which I again missed because I didn't bother re-reading a seemingly identical sentence) is either an obvious lie, or evidence that you were just hurling mud for the hell of it (!?) with all five of your comments: you are the only commenter here who has been focused exclusively on alleged past disruptive behaviour by one of the participants (of which behaviour, again, you have thus far refused to provide evidence), and yet you claim you didn't even recognize that participant's username? Seriously? Whatever the outcome of this ANI thread (and the related RFC), I will be asking a series of questions on your talk page after the dust has settled, and I expect answers. (Technically, ADMINACCT obliges you to reply here and now given that these questions have been floating on ANI for close to a week, while you are supposed to reply promptly and civilly to queries about [your] Wikipedia-related conduct -- you have been neither prompt nor civil in my estimation -- but I would be happy to wait. Honestly, the most important question would, if your actions and/or refusal to act resulted disruption to the article space, why you allowed this to happen, and it will not be known that such happened until both this thread and the RFC are closed or archived.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet more misrepresentation of sources

Another source has been found that explicitly contradicts the content Martin has been trying to include in the article despite his having previously claimed the opposite. If there ever was a "content dispute", it ended a month ago when it was first found that Martin was misquoting sources: now the only question is what to do about it. SMcCandlish suggested that he might be in favour of a page-ban (or topic ban?), and I would be amenable to that. I still think that this is not a case of tendentious POV-pushing in a particular topic area but rather targeted trolling (given the flip-flopping on certain points mentioned above) and would support a block for the edit-warring, IDHT, willful misrepresentation of sources, etc. (anything from a one-day block to an indefinite one). But again, I'm open to other suggestions and would support a page ban or other kind of editing restriction if others still disagree with me on this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Trout them all. Presenting religiously mottainai as if there was something worth the trouble, is a joke. Using a Japanese word to change a banality into some mysterious and ineffable concept, is only a promotional trick. This is for Martinthewriter, Francis Schonken etc. And then, why trouting also Hijiri88 ? For such a poor defense of what was obvious from the beginning. Don't mottainai our precious time with such a bludgeoning quarrel about a non-existing concept. Striking all of this shameful article is not what can be suggested here. But this is not an argument against the suggestion itself. Pldx1 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Sorry to bother you (merry Christmas, by the way!), but would you please block the above editor (or at least strike/collapse his comment and warn him) for violating your repeated warnings to him to stop hounding me? He hasn't edited ANI in eight months (and has hardly edited English Wikipedia in four months), so there's very little room for AGF in this case. That plus the fact that he is an anti-Japanese Korean nationalist who in this case is essentially defending editors pushing a Japanese nationalist POV just because in this case the latter are fighting with me ("don't ban them, just trout them -- and trout Hijiri too!") makes it really obvious that the above cannot be justified. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's edits

Given the massive number of problems with Francis Schonken's recent rewrite of the text in question, I think a reasonable case could be made that he also needs to be TBANned or at least page-banned. Not only has he repeatedly referred to his obviously highly problematic rewrite (including such howlers as Mottainai is the classical Japanese terminal form mottainashi. and multiple needlessly inserted grammatical errors) as either an "improved version" or "a vast improvement" or "an improvement of ... two paragraphs" (Ctrl+F in this section, but see also this edit summary) but he even briefly edit-warred over its inclusion pending talk page discussion despite a large swath of editors (well over half of those who commented in the RFC) having already explicitly supported the inclusion of the text he was removing/bowdlerizing (contrast making a change for demonstrative purposes and then immediately self-reverting for talk page discussion[26]). Add on to this his adding a pointy WP:ONESOURCE template to the section[27] despite my having already explained to him that I consulted multiple sources to verify that the information in the one explicitly cited source one source that was explicitly cited using an sfn template was accurate[28] (he even admitted that he hadn't bothered to read the message where I said I had consulted multiple sources) -- this kind of WP:CIR behaviour is something I have literally not seen since User:Rochelimit -- an Indonesian editor with poor English who eventually had to be blocked because he wouldn't stop copy-pasting from sources -- and is quite unbecoming of someone who has been here as long as Francis has, let alone someone who has been here as long as Francis has and who, like Francis, just recently came off a very long block (which had to be implemented for IDHT behaviour and edit-warring not dissimilar to what is displayed on the mottainai talk page) and should be on his best behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC) (Edited 14:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC) )

It should also be noted that this is not an isolated occurrence, as I've noticed similar problems with his edits going back years ago in unrelated topic areas that were also, apparently, outside his area of expertise.[29][30][31] My having been the one to notice these was apparently what prompted Francis to show up here and here (apparently his first interest in the present article), and was almost certainly why he appeared at the present RFC in the first place (no bot notified him of the RFC). (Actually my first extended interaction with him was here, where he was quite openly advocating for "That source doesn't verify that content" to be rejected as a rationale for removing cited-but-unsourced content -- an extreme position that should send up red flags for anyone who reads it -- and in fact he was openly advocating for the inclusion of such "cited-but-unsourced" content here, and seems to still be doing so.) Given that this editor is apparently hounding me, and his hounding has been disrupting the article and talk namespaces, I think it would be fair to TBAN him from Japanese topics in general (my normal area of interest, and the area where he has shown the least ability to read specialist sources even in English), but a page-ban from Mottainai and a final warning about Japanese topics in general would be worthwhile. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like this is not going to stop. Hijiri88 has thus far not stricken any ad hominems and has discovered my user talk page to retaliate ([32], [33]). Would appreciate some advice how to handle this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to make more of an effort to collaborate with your fellow editors Francis. I've noticed you tend to have a "It's got to be my way" approach, and this leads to problems. (as your block log will attest to.) Work on being open to compromise and listen to other editors with an ear toward the idea that they may offer good suggestions as well. — Ched (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful: I'm open to compromise, and collaborate easily. This is just blaming the victim in the situation. Please find some advice that would actually help, if possible. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

How are you the victim? You could walk away from the article any time. I could too, but that would involve allowing you to destroy my hard work with your OR and poor writing. Your edits clearly show you have no real interest in improving the article and are only there to undermine me, and you have, in six weeks, made no attempt to "compromise and collaborate", but have in fact changed positions several times specifically to oppose whatever position I have been forced to take as a compromise with you and others. And in the past 24 hours I have asked you, politely, twice to strike or remove needless personal attacks directed at me: on the first occasion you blanked the message[34] and doubled down on the personal attack[35] with another snide remark[36], and on the second occasion you blanked the message with no further action.[37] What is even more serious, though, is that by repeatedly accusing me of "OR" you are showing your complete and utter lack of understanding of our WP:NOR policy, which clearly states that This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. -- it is never OR to remove rather than adding content. (Let alone the fact that the first diff in this subsection shows you engaged in actual OR, while the third diff shows you edit-warring said OR into the article meaning it was not your intention to seek opinions on the talk page.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And again --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Could someone please block Francis Schonken until he agrees not to make any more personal attacks like the ones linked to in the above diff? This has reached farcical levels with no one addressing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is why Wikipedia sometimes struggles to hold onto solid content editors. Hijiri88 is one of the hardest working and most dedicated editors I’ve seen and one who brings vital specialized knowledge to the project. The treatment he has been shown throughout this entire ordeal is frankly appalling. I don’t want to get into the content dispute here, but something absolutely needs to be done about the sheer volume of personal attacks and bullying being directed towards this editor. No editor should be treated this way regardless of what the content dispute is about. Michepman (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment

As Hijiri88 reactivated their request against Martinthewriter, and as that request is, quite obviously, an attempt to settle a content dispute via a noticeboard (WP:ANI) that is intended to address behavioural issues rather than content disputes, I'd like to draw attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Hounding by Hijiri 88. Disclosure: that 2015 discussion was closed by me, a closure which then was discussed at WP:AN (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding_by_Hijiri_88).

The gist of my then-time closure being that if Hijiri88 (and the other disputant in that then-time ANI report, who has not participated in the current one) would return to ANI to get a content dispute solved, that is, without previously exhausting appropriate methods for settling content disputes, they should be dealt short, and increasing, blocks. After I explained the reasoning behind that (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Clarifications), the prevalent opinion in the AN after-discussion remained that my ANI closure had been too lenient, and more solid blocks (30 days was e.g. mentioned) should have been imposed immediately.

If I remember correctly Hijiri88 has since received some blocks which would conform to my 2015 closure report (whether or not the rationale given for such blocks mentioned the 2015 closure report). The last of such blocks seems to have been issued less than two months ago. Since my suggestions above that e.g. Hijiri88 strike their ad hominems in the Talk:Mottainai discussion to reduce problematic aspects of the content discussion (etc) seem to be going nowhere, I've withdrawn my !votes and suggestions in that respect above, replacing them here, in this subsection, by the suggestion to block Hijiri88 for, say, a week, per the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Hounding by Hijiri 88 outcome: I see, currently, no other method to make clear to Hijiri88 that WP:ANI is *not* for settling content disputes, for which there are other venues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hijiri88 notified of the above suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

So ... you engaged in disruptive user conduct during the ANI discussion and are now trying to rehash the already-disproved claim that this is a content dispute, and are citing another ANI thread from over four years ago by an editor who has since been site-banned partly for hounding me, but mostly because my pre-2015 assertion that he was a POV-pushing troll had proved accurate? Your having been one of the bad ANI closers whose failure to address the problem with Catflap08's blatant trolling, harassment, POV-pushing, and misrepresentation of sources ultimately led to an ArbCom case is a point against your own credibility, but otherwise how is it relevant?

And no, since the Hijiri88/Catflap08 ArbCom case in late 2015, I have received three short blocks, for various reasons, two of which were immediately removed on appeal and the other (the earliest, from April 2016) was repealed after I promised a few days into the block (not in the form of an appeal) not to gloat about the fact that an editor who had been harassing me had been blocked -- how is any of this remotely relevant to my dispute with you and Martinthewriter on the mottainai talk page??? You, on the other hand, just recently (as in, less than a month before this dispute started) came off a year-long block that had to be implemented because of your edit-warring and IDHT behaviour, both of which you have been engaging in on the mottainai article and talk page. (Edit: Sorry, I had forgotten, until checking my own block log for an unrelated comment posted elsewhere, about my self-block, implemented by Bishonen about a year ago. Like most good Wikipedians, but not apparently Francis Schonken, I take significant blocks, and their messages, seriously enough that I can remember them all off the top of my head, but apparently the same is not true for self-requested blocks.)

Moreover, both this ANI thread and the mottainai article/talk page were quiet for over two days -- why did you choose to come here with this complaint now?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC) (edited 11:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC) )

• You both need to stay away from each other and refrain from commenting on each other or on each other's talk pages NOW, as nothing good is going to come out of any sort of continued back-and-forth here or elsewhere. Blocking Hijiri88 for using ANI to bring up issues of user competency would be nothing short of petty, as there's clearly more to this than simply trying to win a content dispute. That being said, this thread needs to be definitively closed by an admin. SportingFlyer T·C 11:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever

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

Huge amounts of time and effort have been put into trying to help this editor understand the key concepts of notability and reliable sources, by many editors. Yet they have failed to grasp even the basics of these core policies, as evidenced by the recently-created Angela (character). This article is currently at AfD and their comment at the discussion is illuminating, given the problematic sourcing and lack of notability of the subject: [38]. After two years of heavy editing, and repeated coaching by dozens of experienced editors it is reasonable to expect that CheatCodes4ever would understand these concepts; clearly they do not.

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

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

Yes, that's the previous account (CheatCodes4ever also edited Money12122's talk page: [39] and there is meaningful editing overlap between them). I had avoided naming the previous account here to avoid any possibility of outing them, in an overabundance of caution. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Mclarenfan17

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The mentioned user keeps changing the outlook of 2020 World Rally Championship#Entries to his own liking. This is going on for atleast one month. We've had a system for every previous season article. Most of all, we had a discussion, where nobody supported him (all participants were against this new format), but Mclarenfan17 still editwars to keep his own preferred version. I'm making this report, because I can not see the good faith in these edits. Examples of the edits (just enough not to break 3RR): [40] [41] [42] + 3 during the last 24h [43] [44] [45]. So is a consensus something to respect or not? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I don't deny that a consensus was formed. However, in the time since that consensus was formed, new details have come to light and the implementation of that consensus contradicts the sources in the article. I will try to keep this as simple as possible:

At the time the consensus was formed, Hyundai and Toyota had announced their driver line-ups:

• Hyundai had two full-time entries (for Tanak/Jarveoja and Neuville/Gilsoul) and a third entry shared between two crews (Sordo/del Barrio and Loeb/Elena).
• Toyota had three full-time entries (for Ogier/Ingrassia, Evans/Martin and Rovanpera/Hulttunen).

However, after that consensus was formed, Toyota went on to announce that they would enter two additional cars during the year, one for Jari-Matti Latvala and one for Takamoto Katsuta. This is supported in the article by this source (currently source #20 in the article). Crucially, the article makes it clear that Toyota have not decided how to structure their team:

If [Jari-Matti] Latvala secured a five-round deal it could reignite enthusiasm for Toyota to create a 'B team'. Latvala could potentially run alongside Toyota protege Takamoto Katsuta, who will start all eight European WRC rounds and Rally Japan. Sources in Toyota confirmed a second team was under consideration for 2020. The original idea was for [Kalle] Rovanpera and Katsuta to drive for the second team so the two youngsters could learn out of the spotlight. Registering and running a second, point-scoring manufacturer team could be beneficial for Toyota's ambitions of a second makes' title in three years. Latvala said he is ready to help [team principal Tommi] Makinen and Toyota.

"Like I said, I want to drive next year. Maybe it could make sense to join [Katsuta] in a second team and try to score some points," Latvala said.

And this is where the issue stems from. The consensus in the article is to organise the entry table by grouping the entrants together, bringing it in line with the style of table used in previous years. This style uses two tables, one for entries that can score manufacturer points, and one for entries that cannot. By organising the 2020 entries so that they centred on the team, the article implies that the team structure has been set, which contradicts the sources. I have tried to point this out in edit summaries and on the article talk page, but the only response that I have gotten from Pelmeen10 has been the claim that I am deliberately going against the consensus because I don't like it. Furthermore, after I posted an explanation for why a different format was needed, this is what he responded with:

You comments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't have any kind of consensus here. The unannounced car numbers just can't be shown as the most important thing, which the sorting is based on. Like we discussed, there are no sources to back all these numbers. Loeb btw is now associated with number 9.

I have tried to point out that the table format implies something that contradicts the sources and he instead talks about "unannounced car numbers", which leads me to believe that he has not read a) any of my comments or b) the sources in the article and has instead rushed to revert my changes to the article, assuming that I did it because of previous opposition to the table format.

Pelmeen10 opened his post with a question: is a consensus something to respect or not? I would like to answer that: yes, a consensus is something to be respected—but at the same time, a consensus does not give editors a licence to ignore, dismiss or misrepresent a reliable and verifiable source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I have since realised that when Pelmeen10 mentions "unannounced car numbers", he is referreding a a discussion at WT:MOTOR in which he and another editor made a specific claim (that because the title of the regulations refers to "seasonal numbers", drivers must reapply for their numbers every year, and so all of the numbers in the 2020 article are unsourced), but refused to provide any sources to support this when asked for them. In the time since posting this ANI report, Pelmeen10 has repeated the claim (by referring me to that discussion) to justify enforcing the consensus. My response has been to provide multiple sources debunking his theory. If he is trying to claim that the consensus was based on that discussion at WT:MOTOR, then I would argue that there was never a consensus to begin with because it was based on original research (only the title refers to "seasonal numbers"; there is nothing in the actual regulations to support his claim) and because he refused to provide reliable and verifiable sources despite being asked multiple times, instead insisting that the burden rested with people who disagreed with him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes; yet, so far, the discussion is about content details. Please focus future comments on "urgent incidents" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Cullen328: I am aware of what ANI is for and I am not trying to use it to resolve a content dispute. I simply feel that Pelmeen10 is misrepresenting things. He claims that I am wilfully ignoring a consensus because of personal preference, but I am not. I simply felt the need to provide some contextual detail because a) I cannot assume any admin reading this is familiar with the subject, b) the reasons for my decisiom to change the format back are not immediately obvious when reading the article, and c) I feel that Pelmeen10 has a habit of not reading articles, sources and policies thoroughly and I wanted to put something here to refer back during any discussion.

What would you suggest I do otherwise? Say "yes, I ignored the consensus"? Because I did. Not out of personal preference as Pelmeen10 claims, but out of necessity. When I changed the format of the table back, I tried to keep a format that at least resembled the consensus, but was unable to do so. I posted this message to the article talk page (dated 29 November), addressed Pelmeen10 directly (and later edited that message) that same day when he reverted it. There was little activity on the talk page (and none directly related to the issue) until 26 December when I again explained to Pelmeen10 why I felt that I had to make the change. With no opposition to the change for a month (and the expectation that the original consensus would be applied once a more-comprehensive source becomes available), I felt that WP:EDITCONSENSUS applied as a temporary solution. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, you openly admit that you are ignoring consensus even though Wikipedia:Consensus is policy, and you are claiming that your own personal perception of "necessity" overrides policy. I am unpersuaded. Can you please explain yourself more clearly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: in the time between the consensus being formed and this ANI being opened, more information about the 2020 World Championship has been made public. I felt that this source published on 29 November (and currently in the article as source #20) changed things and would have affected the consensus discussion had it been available at the time (for the record, the consensus was still being discussed as recently as 28 November).

The consensus at WP:WRC is that entry tables should be structured in such a way that all crews competing for one team should be grouped together (for example, in the 2019 article). This is common across all motorsport-related articles. However, that consensus was formed before 29 November. On 29 November, Toyota announced that they would enter two additional cars during the 2020 season. The content of that source made it clear that they had not yet decided on the structure of the team. Would it be one big team of five cars? Or two separate teams? And if so, how would the cars be split between them?

When I saw this, I realised that there would be a problem with the consensus. It meant that the entry table grouped all five Toyota entries together as if they were one team, which contradicted what the source said. This source—Autosport—is one of the most widely-used sources across motorsport articles because it is extremely reliable. Furthermore, Hyundai had already announced how their team would be structured, which meant I felt the article further contradicted the source because it implied Toyota had finalised their structure, which they had not.

When I made the changes to the table, I tried as best I could to respect the consensus while also reflecting the content of the 29 November source, but I simply could not make it work. I also knew that within six weeks an ironclad source—the entry list for the first round—would be published, resolving the issue altogether because it would make clear who was competing for which team. I felt that I had to choose between a consensus which inadvertently contradicted sources (which had not been available at the time) or overlooking the consensus in favour of a very reliable and verifiable source with the expectation that the consensus would be applied once a source would be published within six weeks. Everything that I did here was in good faith. It was not, as Pelmeen10 contends, because I didn't like the consensus, but because of information published after the consensus was formed. Had the information published on 29 November been available when the consensus was formed, it would have been factored into the consensus discussion in which case a) the consensus would not have been formed as it was, or b) editors would have agreed to wait until the structure of Toyota's team was announced before we applied the table format. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, you say the you understand that this noticeboard does not judge content disputes and yet you continue to to argue here at ANI in favor of your preferred content. Let me be clear: no uninvolved editor here at ANI cares about your content disputes. Go pursue Dispute resolution which might include a Request for comment. In brief, if the facts underlying a consensus have changed, then engage with other editors interested in the article to build a new consensus. Be persuasive. Forcefully claiming the right to impose your preferred changes is wrong, just plain wrong. Please do not go there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm not sure what you want me to say here. You asked me to explain my actions, and I have tried to do just that with a sufficient level of detail that you understand my thinking here, but you just reply "ANI isn't for content disputes". I'm not claiming that I have some right to ignore a consensus. I'm saying when I was put in a position where I had to choose between a consensus and a reliable source, I chose the reliable source when satisfying both the consensus and the source proved impossible. When I posted this to the article talk page, nobody came along and made an alternative suggestion that resolved the dilemma. I had every expectation and every intention that the agreed-upon format would eventually be applied and everything I did was done in good faith. This has nothing to do with a "preferred version" of the article.

What would you do in my position? You can observe a consensus that is largely cosmetic, but contradicts reliable sources that you did not have access to when that consensus was made; or you can overlook the consensus for the time being to make sure the article accurately reflects its sources with a view to reintroducing the consensus as soon as it is possible to do so. You cannot satisfy both at once, and it seems that my biggest mistake was that I made the wrong choice. I made it because I cannot see anything in WP:CONSENSUS that says editor are allowed to form a consensus that ignores WP:RELIABLE. If I'm missing it, please point it out to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, the correct course of action here would have been to first boldly attempt to edit the article, then go to the talk page to hash it out. You should not attempt to reinstate your edits again until the discussion has been resolved. If you think that other editors on the article are ignoring your arguments, you can take it to WP:DRN or convene an WP:RFC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I tried to do exactly that. This is the edit I made to the article on 29 November, and this is the explanation I posted to the talk page five minutes later. The only person who responded (and not on the talk page, my talk page or at any relevant WikiProject) was an editor with a habit of reverting things on sight and not reading articles and sources, including articles he is reverting. Case in point, this edit where he removed reliably-sourced content (Takamoto Katsuta's entry) because he didn't check. I've been bold, I've posted an explanation for why I felt the changes were necessary, shown a willingness to work with others on it and nothing has come of it until the past 24 hours (there were a few other edits in the past week, but largely unrelated to the issue and were adding unsourced content). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, taking it to the talk page in November was the correct decision. If other editors don't respond to you there, the next step is to convene an RfC or start a thread here, depending on the exact nature of the issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 09:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, other editors in rallying articles now mostly leave one or couple of comments (or are not even gonna comment anymore), because Mclarenfan17 can keep up the discussion endlessly (weeks, months) with the same arguements, which will never lead to anything. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So can I revert to the wikitable format we have a consensus of? The one we've used for years. Because no Rfc or DRN has started (which I'm pretty sure is not necessary, because all active editors in this subject have already given their thoughts. Plus, Mclarenfan17 claims his version is just temporary. Is it now clear that Mclarenfan17 shouldn't revert me again? Though, I don't want to be part of an edit war. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I have no objection to the consensus being applied, but would suggest that its implementation needs to accurately reflect the sources in the article. In other words, it cannot group the five Toyota entries together as though they are one team. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Another violation: Mclarenfan17 did not even respect a consensus after the DRN/Rfc is finished: here is one where uninvolved editor summed up the discussion with "it appears that there is a small consensus favouring the removal of the third row" - but just 3 days later (24 Nov 2019) Mclarenfan17 reverts it claiming "The "consensus" was so small that no-one did anything with it for TEN WEEKS and it's undermined by one editor's agenda". So the behaviour is repeating over and over again... Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: the "consensus" in question was formed by an editor who has engaged in a sustained campaign of harrassment (particularly wikihounding) against me. It was very weak to begin with me and clearly designed to frustrate my editing practice rather than benefit the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that user (Tvx1) has respect among other rallying editors (including me). But it looks to me that you try to undermine his comments by getting personal (attacking and insulting). You have also attacked other editors, both in comments and edit summaries. If needed, I can bring examples. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That user's edit history shows that his only contributions to rallying articles are to join in discussions on the current season's talk page and oppose me in discussions. He has never actually contributed anything to a rallying article. It stands out because his edit history shows a handful of topics that he likes to edit articles about, and that he contributes to multiple articles and talk page discussions within those topics—but not rallying, where he only ever contributes to one talk page at a time. It's really none of your business and a matter for a separate ANI. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You are making some serious accusations of bad faith and generally seriously wrong editing by User:Tvx1 here even though you provided no diffs, and AFAIK there's no case where your claims were established. You've also failed to notify Tvx1 of this discussion despite your serious accusations. I'll do so for you but I suggest you either provide diffs and a brief summary to support your allegations or withdraw them lest you are blocked for personal attacks for making unsupported allegations of wrong doing. I recalled seeing your 2 names before and came across Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Harrassment by an editor, and your claims didn't seem to be accepted in part because your comment was way too long. Nevertheless, there was some frustration at your unwillingness to accept any wrong doing on your part. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I did not want to turn this discussion into a discussion about wiki-hounding. I feel that a separate ANI would be more appropriate for that; however, I have not had any issues with the editor in question and last time I tried to raise subject of wiki-hounding, I felt the editor successfully misrepresented my ANI report as bring some petty revenge for "losing" a DRN discussion (which was not helped by a DRN volunteer refusing to read anything I posted, but seeing fit to pass judgement on it anyway). As you can perhaps appreciate, in light of this I have little appetite to start another ANI about wiki-hounding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you believe there are procedural issues which means a closure was incorrect, you should discuss this with the closer and try to get the closing statement changed. Worst case, you could always bring it to WP:AN or similar and ask for a re-close. Likewise if you feel that consensus has changed because of new information, it may be okay to WP:BOLDly make a change in some cases. But once someone objects, you need to work on establishing that consensus has indeed changed. If someone has objected, and no one else is commenting, then you have no real evidence that consensus has changed, whatever your views of the other person's objections and so you have to return to the old consensus established via an RfC. You can try using WP:3O or some other method like posting a neutral message on a relevant wikiproject asking for more feedback. Ultimately, if you cannot get a consensus via those methods, then you need to start another WP:RfC to establish this alleged new consensus and overturn the old one. You cannot simply refuse to accept a consensus, even a narrow one because you don't like it. To be clear I'm including any sincere belief on your part that the consensus view is wrong, doesn't work, is based on OR, is invalid, etc as well as your personal opinions on the motivations of other editors. Especially not a consensus 3 days old. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel I did exactly that. I made a BOLD edit based on new information. I posted an explanation on the talk page and I got no response. Pelmeen10 did revert it and I directly addressed him on the talk page, asking him to take care because his revert had deleted content from the article that had nothing to do with the consensus. He never responded. Nobody did, and things have been quiet until about 24 hours ago. Despite Pelmeen10's repeated claim that I ignored the consensus because I disliked it, everything I did was done in good faith. I felt I had to choose between a consensus and a source with information that could change the consensus. I only made the change after trying to re-format the table to be consistent with the consensus, but also accurately reflect the sources, but failed.

If Pelmeen10 wants to continue claiming I ignored the consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then I think he needs to provide some evidence to support the claim. Otherwise, he is ignoring WP:AGF.

I have performed a few reverts in the section of the article in the past week, but this was because unsourced content was being added to the article and had nothing to do with the consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I said the above without looking at the article discussion. And frankly now that I have, I wouldn't want to talk to you on the talk page either. I see you proposed working together on wording an RfC which is excellent.

But then I see you said this "Nothing Tvx1 has to say on this subject has any value." and "I sm not insulting people. It is a simple statement of fact: Tvx1's only interest in these discussions is hounding me." which is quite the opposite. If you want to minimise your involvement with Tvx1, that is fine. But as I said above, if you have evidence that Tvx1 is hounding you, you need to open an ANI case and convince the community of this. Until you do so, you need to stop making accusations especially not on article talk pages, and especially where it's of little relevance. (The editor tried 3 ping 3 others, so it's not like they were only asking for Tvx1's opinion.)

As an uninvolved editor, seeing such random personal attacks makes me very reluctant to get involved in any discussion with you. Who knows if you're going to decide to attack me for no reason?

More generally, if I'm frank, this seems a very dumb issue to get so worked up about. The championship starts on the 23 January per the article. This means that by now, by the time any RfC closes, if it lasts the full 30 days, it will be moot point since the concerns will no longer hold. This doesn't mean it's okay to have inaccurate information, but can you all really not come to some sort of agreement to address all concerns? Have you consider keeping the table as is and using footnotes to clarify for example? Surely there's something you can do without needing an RfC. If you wanted an RfC to try and solve the issue for future years, that would be another thing, but it may be better to wait until this year's championship starts so people don't get too bogged down in the details specific to this year.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to implement a consensus version taking on board the concerns of both editors I can only hope it sticks of they take it from here since I don't think I can be bothered taking it further. Anyway I mainly came back to say if anyone does want an RfC, it is imperative that you agree on a wording beforehand and then focus on some brief explanation backed by our policy and guidelines for your preference. An RfC with extensive back and forths between existing participants like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally/Archive 3#Request for Comment on table format is likely doomed to failure. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the content-related help. But I started this topic because the behaviour of the mentioned user - ignoring consensus and editwarring into his own preferred version. I'm not convinced the user will stop this kind of behaviour. His previous user Prisonermonkeys was blocked several times for editwarring, I feel the only thing he is learned, is not to break 3RR (more than 3 reverts in 24h) and remove "undid revision..." from edit summaries. I mean, previous dispute was with not showing the possibility that the defending champion can choose number 1 for his car number (per the rules), I insisted TBA (no direct source for the numbers) & started a discussion here, later moved it here to get more feedback. These are the reverts Mclarenfan17 made: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] He reverted different users 21 times to a version with only #8 until left it alone. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

None of those edits provided a source to support the change of the number.

I would also like to point out that Pelmeen10 made a specific claim in that WT:MOTOR discussion. I repeatedly asked him to provide sources to support that claim and he refused. He instead insisted that the burden lay with people who disagreed with him to prove him wrong. The issue came up on the 2020 article talk page where he claimed that the numbers "were not directly sourced or official". My response was to provide four reliable sources, all of which debunked his original claim. Pelmeen10 replied to this by saying the issue was not being discussed, even though he brought the subject up in the first place.

It is obvious that Pelmeen10 wants to see some kind of admin action taken against me. However, the diffs he has provided show me reverting unsourced content and he himself has a bad habit of making unsourced claims and refusing to provide any sources in support of those claims when challenged. He has also taken to engaging in original research to reach the claims that he has made in the first place. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't really get the accusation you made. The content added to Wikipedia needs direct sources, not the other way around. The content shouldn't be wrong by adding more than sources actually write. I was challenging your added content, not you challenging me. While you're trying to boomerang this somehow, you are confusing something by providing 26 December talk, while the reverts I listed happened between 31 October and 21 November. So the issue did not come up just 2 days ago but was resolved on 21 November by you not reverting (examples [67] [68] [69]) the note that was suggested in the discussion. The note is now there from 21 November. The rule that defending champion can choose number one, is in the sporting regulations and you know it. I tryed adding the sporting regulations as a source on 3 November, which you reverted. "The issue" with other numbers was raised in 22 November here by two more users, Tvx1 and SSSB. I quote: Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that. - In any of the sources you provided, it was never mentioned that they can keep the same number year on year, nor was explained what the "career number" means. In the rules, they are still "seasonal numbers". Sorry for discussing content here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That is original research.

Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that.

The only place that "seasonal numbers" is mentioned is in the title of Section 17 of those regulations. There is nothing in the text of Section 17 that "it seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season". I have repeatedly searched for sources to support this intepretation, and have found nothing. I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources to support this interpretation, and you have refused. And I have provided no less than four reliable and verifiable sources that specifically state that crews choose permanent numbers. You responded by changing the subject. It's quite obvious that you don't have the sources to support the claim, but nevertheless insist on it being true and refuse to address anyone or anything that points out that this is incorrect. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources you listed mention what does that "career number" mean! It fails to mention that the numbers will carry on to the next season (2020 in this case). That's what you can call WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR. Removing the numbers for not having enough information is not OR, very funny you'd think that. It would be the correct thing not to list "expected numbers". Now you've even added the same numbers to 2021_World_Rally_Championship#Entries, crazy. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

For What It's Worth

This is a dispute that is partly a content dispute and partly a conduct dispute, as are many disputes here. This is a conduct forum. However, most conduct disputes, in particular most difficult conduct disputes, begin as content disputes. A conduct dispute that does not have a content element is usually simply vandalism or trolling, and can usually be resolved by one administrator concluding, with no objection, that the offender is not here constructively and needs blocking. Unfortunately, what we have here is a dispute involving an editor who is involved in multiple content disputes about motorsports (and possibly other matters). An editor who is involved in frequent content disputes is either an editor who edits in a contentious area, or an editor who doesn't collaborate well. This editor, User:Mclarenfan17, appears to be an editor who gets into a lot of content disputes, many of which come to WP:DRN as content disputes, and some of which come here as conduct disputes. I have generally tried to be neutral in the content disputes, and have assisted in resolving them by RFC. However, if an editor gets into too many content disputes, maybe they are an editor who doesn't compromise enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User Lightningstrikers

Lightningstrikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Today, a "newcomer" to WP by the name of Lightningstrikers, for his/her very first edits, swiftly reversed text six times in a matter of minutes in the occupational stress entry. Lightningstrikers did not justify the reversals. The edits, to say the least, were disruptive. Even the name Lightningstrikers suggests someone who is out swiftly make disruptive edits. I am concerned that he/she ‎is acting like someone who previously hassled me and was ultimately banned from WP after operating under the a number of names Mrm7171, Psych999, Mattbrown69, and 121.91.164.65. Iss246 (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted because it was un-sourced. Lightningstrikers (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

user:Lightningstrikers is using the same tactics as Mrm7171. That is a phony justification on two grounds. First, every editorial change he/she made this morning was unsourced. Second, the deletion of a sentence in the first paragraph he/she made today, was justified on the basis that the sentence was unsourced. However, there was an internal link in that sentence to the entry that justifies the sentence.

I add that the typical way to handle unsourced text is to mark the text as unsourced as a courtesy to the WP editor who wrote the text. And leave the marker there for a few weeks, to prompt the editor to add a source, which is what I did when I came across unsourced text in the occupational stress entry. Only after a few weeks with no response to the marker did I delete the unsourced text.

Finally, user:Lightningstrikers was operating in a manner that parallels the manner in which the banned Mrm7171 operated. Mrm7171 kept working against the occupational health psychology entry day after day. Lightningstrikers operated that way on the occupational stress entry by striking references to occupational health psychology in addition to other disruptive edits. Iss246 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers continues to undo my work on the occupational stress entry. He does not justify his edits. I would like the administrators to get him to stop. He previously went by the name Mrm7171. Iss246 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246, From the Lightningstrikers's talk page, they posted a message that says that the source didn't have the stated info, in which case it {{failed verification}} vs. was "unsourced". It is sourced.

I don't see the information in the cited source, either. It seems that the sentence about the CDC either needs to be reworded or needs another source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the information User:CaroleHenson. The CDC website only identifies occupational health psychology. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/default.html Iss246 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It does not identify abnormal psychology. It does not identify social psychology. It does not identify industrial/organizational psychology.... OHP is the only branch of psychology the CDC identifies in connection to occupational stress. To quote the CDC website, "Many psychologists have argued that the psychology field needs to take a more active role in research and practice to prevent occupational stress, illness, and injury. This is what the new field of Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) is all about." Iss246 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246, How do you know that it only identifies occupational health psychology (i.e., Where on the page does it say that?) Or is there another page that shows what you're saying?

Would it work to define it? State it's a new field? Other?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It is now more than 20 years old. But that would still make it a new field. I will work on it. I think Lightningstrikers will revert it. Why don't you look at what I will write, and make editorial suggestions. Iss246 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers has a history back when he went by Mrm7171 to try to undermine occupational health psychology. Mrm7171 got banned from WP. Iss246 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers has been warned about reverting these edits. I have been chatting with them on their talk page and this seems to be a misunderstanding about the concept of "failed verification" and what goes in the lede/lead. I stated in my response that I don't believe that the lede must only include summarized article information... I think that if it sets the stage for the discussion in the article, it's cool to have it in the lede.

If they continue to revert without properly explaining their issue with the edits, I think it's likely that they will have escalating warnings and/or a temporary or more block.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, would you mind looking at my edit. If it isn't reverted, it should look like this:

Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job. Occupational stress often stems from pressures that do not align with a person's knowledge, skills, or expectations. Job stress can increase when workers do not feel supported by supervisors or colleagues, feel as if they have little control over work processes, or find that their efforts on the job are incomensurate with the job's rewards.[1] Although many different professionals work in the area of occupational stress, the CDC indicates that the relatively new field of occupational health psychology is "all about" research and practice aimed at the prevention of "occupational stress, illness, and injury."[2]

Thanks for your help.Iss246 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246, If you think Lightningstrikers is a sock of Mrm7171, you should file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations with your evidence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As a side comment, there haven't been edits on the page since 2014. See here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246, That looks good to me. One question, should it state "CDC of the United States" for context?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, that is a good question. The CDC can stand because it is arguably the best known health research organization in the world, even more than the WHO. But what I will do is place an internal link around it to help readers unfamiliar with the term. 06:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 and Lightningstrikers, I am not finding that either of you have bad intentions for the article. I think that each of you, though, have different approaches and the nature of the content that should go in the article. Is it possible for each of you to state your intention for the article - what motivates you to add or remove content based on how you think the article should be written? Perhaps comments on the article talk page will bring in any others that might like to add their thoughts.

I think that might be helpful in understanding each other's position... and coming to consensus on the addition of content to the article. For instance, it seems (If I understand correctly) that Lightningstrikers is concerned about making the article too US centric when it is an article that relates to the issue around the globe.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, thank you for your concern. The article on occupational stress is not U.S.-centric. That is one of the red herrings Lightningstrikers likes to use in attacking my efforts on WP. The article references the EU. The article references the effort-reward imbalance model, which was developed in Germany. The article also references Japan. The demand-resources model was developed by researchers in the Netherlands. The demand-control model, which was developed in the U.S., was expanded into the demand-control-support model by researchers in Sweden.

Yes, the article references the CDC because the CDC is a preeminent research institution. The CDC is concerned with the baleful effects of job stress. The CDC has an international reach when it comes to protecting health. This is a quote from the WP entry on the CDC, "The CDC works with other organizations around the world to address global health challenges and contain disease threats at their source. It works closely with many international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as ministries of health and other groups on the front lines of outbreaks. The agency maintains staff in more than 60 countries, including some from the U.S. but even more from the countries in which it operates."

It is unwise to state the national origin of every researcher and institution that contributed to efforts to understand and reduce job stress because it is important to emphasize that science is international. We don't want to inject nationalism into the scientific enterprise. Iss246 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 It is not unusual for topics on en.Wikipedia to be considered US-centric. Looking at the article, I can see how someone might come to that conclusion and I think that in general that may happen for a number of reasons. I would prefer that Lightningstrikers speaks for themselves, though.

My point was that maybe if you understand where each other was coming from, it might help lead to an approach you both can live with.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, you would ordinarily be right if I were dealing with a regular WP contributor. But Lightningstrikers is not a regular WP contributor. He pretended to be a newcomer but he is not. If he says something is not sourced, he will delete it right away and not give the writer a few weeks to place a reference to a source next to the deleted text. He uses the same MO as a banned former contributor named Mrm7171; Mrm7171 hassled me for a two years because he dislikes the occupational health psychology entry, an entry I worked on, a little at a time, until it became more somewhat filled out. Iss246 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lightningstrikers and Iss246:, I have not seen an admin chime in on this issue, so I am guessing that they don't think that this issue rises to the level of someone needing to be blocked, etc. It seems at this point, Iss246, you could open a sockpuppet investigation, if you believe that needs to be done.

Individually or collectively, you could try to ensure that you are correctly following WP:BRD to resolve discrepancies about content additions. If that doesn't work, you could check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Best of luck!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’

Dear Administors,

This user who started editing without signing and subsequently started using this (possibly others too) user profile user:NormanGear is a serial vandal and manipulator whose SOLE contributions on Wikipedia this far have been obsessive attempts to somehow make the Portuguese people more Jew/Berber than what they really are. Conversely, this very same user as I suspected, is trying to delete and like other Spanish/Hispanic users, minimise or delete altogether any of of the Spaniards’ Arab/Jewish ancestry. The edits speak by themselves on both the pages below. This user has now even resorted to play the victim card, when their only actions have been to disrupt, manipulate, vandalise and offend. I trust this user/issue will be resolved and as per my repeated requests, the Portuguese people page is made permanently semi-protected from this kind of repeated nefariousness:

Same user with several (possibly more) aliases

IP 46.222.138.139,
IP 84.78.247.214 

and now signing as user:NormanGear.

This sockpuppet was created only last week with the sole purpose of malicious editing against this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people

and conversely, try and rid the equivalent Spanish people/Spaniards of exactly the same contents which are totally relevant to Spain, more than to Portugal

See recent history where it shows their activity:

Extended content.

version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) curprev 16:22, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,256 bytes +1‎ Disambiguation undo curprev 16:21, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,255 bytes -655‎ Removed sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’s malicious edit once again. Their sole contribution is Mooris/Jewish genetics attempt to Portuguese people only. Going to add ALL sources to Spanish people as Iberia is mainly Spain and the Spanish page desperately tries to hide the Moors and Jews. undo curprev 09:31, 27 December 2019‎ Rodw talk contribs‎ m 88,910 bytes +8‎ Disambiguating links to Berber (link changed to Berbers) using DisamAssist. undothank curprev 18:11, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,902 bytes -1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:10, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,903 bytes +35‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:08, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,868 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:07, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,867 bytes +25‎ Deleted phrase not supported by the source. Added literal phrase from the source itself. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 07:44, 23 December 2019‎ PohranicniStraze talk contribs‎ m 88,842 bytes 0‎ sp undothank curprev 13:40, 22 December 2019‎ DumbBOT talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -15‎ removing a protection template from a non-protected page (info) undo curprev 16:27, 21 December 2019‎ EncMstr talk contribs‎ 88,857 bytes +15‎ + undothank curprev 16:24, 21 December 2019‎ EncMstr talk contribs‎ m 88,842 bytes 0‎ Protected "Portuguese people": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC))) undothank curprev 16:10, 21 December 2019‎ KylieTastic talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -244‎ Reverted 5 edits by Melroross: Not valid - the correct place would be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but its not valdalism it looks more like a difference of opinion (TW) undothank Tag: Undo curprev 15:59, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,086 bytes -8‎ Protection undo curprev 15:58, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,094 bytes +8‎ Protection undo curprev 15:58, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,086 bytes -8‎ undo curprev 15:57, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,094 bytes -30‎ undo curprev 15:56, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,124 bytes +282‎ Semi-protecting undo curprev 15:56, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:55, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,841 bytes -75‎ I reverse the issue until I discuss the problem. I have started a thread in Talk. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:35, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ Undid revision 931835326 by NormanGear (talk) Requested permanent Block for all IP addresses used so far. Several profiles signed and unsigned by one same individual with the sole purpose of Vandalism undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:34, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -74‎ Undid revision 931835326 by NormanGear (talk) Requested permanent Block for all IP addresses used so far. Several profiles signed and unsigned by one same individual with the sole purpose of Vandalism undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:29, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ The fact there are other articles where this information is specified does not give the right to delete it in this article. And the previous sentence is not supported by the source attached. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:20, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -74‎ Undid revision 931834084 by NormanGear (talk) this is already in the Genetics of the Iberian Peninsula. What is the obsession with Jews and Moors? undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:17, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ Extracted faithful fragments from the source: "Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources." "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit curprev 14:21, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes 0‎ Undid revision 931827447 by 84.78.247.214 (talk) same Vandalism edits undo Tag: Undo curprev 14:20, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -968‎ Undid revision 931827335 by 84.78.247.214 (talk) Undid repeated MALICIOUS edits form unidentified Hispanic IP address based in Alarcon undo Tag: Undo curprev 14:08, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes 0‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 14:07, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes +968‎ Recovered, the sources are scientific studies, not opinions. The source itself used in this article and the two new ones added by me state that Jewish and North African genetics are quite significant. And that is concentrated in the western half of the Peninsula. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 13:39, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -968‎ Undid biased, unsigned edit. Al Andalus genetic mark already has a sub section on this page undo curprev 09:32, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes -1‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:27, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,811 bytes +1‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:26, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes -16‎ Third source: "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low" undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:11, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,826 bytes -24‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:07, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,850 bytes -2‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:06, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,852 bytes +1,010‎ The source used states that there is 19.8% of Jewish admixture and 10% North Africa. That is not limited or little. I have added more sources. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:48, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 88,842 bytes 0‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:14, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 88,842 bytes -8‎ Not lead. Voyages of Christopher Columbus was the major event in the Age of Discovery undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 21:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,850 bytes +163‎ More cited sources undo curprev 20:57, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,687 bytes +190‎ Sourced quote, previously deleted by unsigned Spanish IP address undo curprev 20:51, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,497 bytes +246‎ Undid revision 931670991 by 46.222.138.139 (talk) undo Tag: Undo curprev 17:05, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,251 bytes +121‎ Religious affiliation data source undo curprev 16:55, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,130 bytes 0‎ Comma undo curprev 16:54, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,130 bytes +159‎ Hasdingi sourced content undo curprev 16:45, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,971 bytes +98‎ More on Suebians undo curprev 16:40, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,873 bytes +87‎ Sourced content undo curprev 16:32, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,786 bytes +193‎ Pre Celt sourced undo curprev 16:23, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,593 bytes +85‎ Goths sourced quote undo curprev 16:23, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,508 bytes +70‎ Goths sourced quote undo curprev 16:01, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,438 bytes +236‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 15:28, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,908 bytes +76‎ Sourced content undo curprev 15:18, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,832 bytes +53‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 15:13, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,779 bytes +316‎ Added sourced quotes undo curprev 15:10, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced content undo curprev 15:08, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes -62‎ Sourced quote undo curprev 15:08, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced undo curprev 15:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes -62‎ Sourced quote after malicious reversal by anonymous Spanish user IP address 46.222.138.139 undo curprev 15:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced quote after malicious reversal by anonymous Spanish user IP address 46.222.138.139 undo curprev 14:50, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes +558‎ Undid revision 931670638 by 46.222.138.139 (talk) undo Tag: Undo curprev 12:01, 20 December 2019‎ 46.222.138.139 talk‎ 85,843 bytes -246‎ There were other powers that lead the Age of Discovery. Removed parts without contrast undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 11:57, 20 December 2019‎ 46.222.138.139 talk‎ 86,089 bytes -558‎ Unsourced undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 12:22, 17 December 2019‎ Trappist the monk talk contribs‎ m 86,647 bytes +135‎ →‎Pre-Roman groups: cite repair; undothank curprev 12:16, 17 December 2019‎ Trappist the monk talk contribs‎ m 86,512 bytes +5‎ →‎Portuguese ancestry in the Brazilian population: cite repair; undothank curprev 04:16, 17 December 2019‎ Boghog talk contribs‎ 86,507 bytes -1,226‎ consistent citation formatting undothank curprev 04:14, 17 December 2019‎ Boghog talk contribs‎ 87,733 bytes +649‎ Alter: title, pmc, url, template type. Add: isbn, bibcode, title. Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Converted bare reference to cite template. Removed parameters. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here. | via #UCB_Gadget undothank (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) Now see what they did in the Spanish people/Spaniards page, he deleted all my edits which are absolutely valid, historical, academic and duly cited from reputed sources. Basically, since I noticed this malicious vandalism, they’ve subsequently opted for the ‘softy soft’ approach and try to make me out as the one who is bias. Here are their latest edits where they deleted my contributions on the Spanish page... basically trying to ‘dump’ racially motivated content in the Portuguese people page and get rid of anything remotely similar in the Spanish equivalent... why you would do that is beyond my comprehension. And this is what they did in their page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards curprev 16:47, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 66,350 bytes +432‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 16:28, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 65,918 bytes +20‎ Undid revision 932543802 by NormanGear (talk) This sockpuppet user is adding Moors/Jews to Portuguese people page and trying to delete it from the Spanish page. Reported isser for permanent block. Malicious vandalism. undo Tag: Undo curprev 18:17, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 65,898 bytes -20‎ Reverted to the previous edition. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 16:09, 23 December 2019‎ Carlstak talk contribs‎ 65,918 bytes -13‎ ce undothank curprev 10:11, 23 December 2019‎ Frem3 talk contribs‎ 65,931 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit curprev 16:28, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 65,930 bytes -10‎ Biased language trying to minimise over 800 years of Islamic presence in Spain undo curprev 03:41, 19 December 2019‎ BrugesFR talk contribs‎ 65,940 bytes +8‎ →‎See also undothank curprev 17:15, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,932 bytes -9‎ undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:13, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,941 bytes -8‎ undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:09, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,949 bytes -1,560‎ WP:SYNTHESIS undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:02, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 67,509 bytes -10‎ removed misrepresentation of sources by the blocked socks of JamesOredan undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 19:21, 16 December 2019‎ Pelirojopajaro talk contribs‎ 67,519 bytes 0‎ US number was duplicated undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

So it’s basically like ‘Wanting to have the cake and eat it’. Not acceptable.Melroross (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the next step is to block User:Melroross for personal attacks. Whatever the merits of the change may be, calling NormanGear a 'serial vandal and manipulator' and referring to his 'malicious edits' is not acceptable. Also the complaint by Melroross that NormanGear is socking appears to be questionable. I have modified the title of this thread to remove some attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Note that this concerns the same issue as the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Melroross above. The thing that I don't get is why anyone thinks that saying that a group of people has Berber and Jewish ancestry is an insult. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• note that I did advise Melrose here that it wasn't vandalism and "MALICIOUS edits" and to address the content not the editor. Also that moving from an IP to an account was not Sock puppetry and NormanGear had told me here that they would only edit from the account. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(talk page stalker) In my opinion, from looking at Talk:Portuguese people#Edit war, there seems to be a couple of things happening.. unhelpful rhetoric and verbose comments from User:Melroross and what appears to be a misunderstanding by User:NormanGear, who could ensure that when adding content it is 1) Relevant and applicable to the article and 2) restates content from the source. It seems like NormanGear is clear about restating the source. What seems to be falling short is ensuring that the content is applicable and relevant to the Portuguese people, which is about people of the country of Portugal.

Perhaps calmness, brevity to the key issue(s) (like in "Just the facts, Ma'am"), and seeking to understand (vs. focusing only on being understood) would help.––CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you scroll up a bit on that talk page, you see [70]

All Brazilian, all sharing a common hatred against the Portuguese. Illegal migrants who got kicked out or refused entry in Portugal? Definitely a serious grudge there. Wikipedia is not the place for such behaviour.

which is IMO more than just unhelpful rhetoric. Of course, there's no reason why they should be posting IP details there anyway.

Even [71]

As I wrote here before, the regular Vandals on this page are almost invariably Brazilians or Hispanics (Spanish & Hispanic-Americans) who hold historical grudges and resentment against the Portuguese. You are just another one.

is very very far from an acceptable comment.

Of course even the opening comment says

like other Spanish/Hispanic users

and the heading mentions Spanish. At a minimum, I'll say the editor seems to have major WP:AGF problems when it comes to Spanish and Brazilian editors.

Then there's this edit summary [72]

User displays serious mental health issues

While User:JeremyVaz was clearly a problem editor, hence why they are now indeffed, there's no need to comment on another editor's mental health.

Frankly the editor is lucky to escape with only a 72 hours IMO. BTW, there is a thread #User Melroross in case anyone missed it. IMO they should consider themselves on very thin ice from now on.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Those postings are a bit scarey and I am surprised that they haven't been removed. I have never seen someone out user's names and email addresses, even when investigating known sockpuppets the user's names and email addresses aren't outed. Shouldn't they be removed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I requested that Oversight suppress the edit with the IP and email information. In the future, if you encounter something like this (edits that shouldn't just be reverted, but actually deleted), information on how to get the revision content deleted (so it becomes only visible to administrators) or suppressed (where even admins can't see the revision content) is here: Wikipedia:REVDELREQUEST. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, BubbaJoe123456.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Complaint about new user:NormanGear for continued deletion and disregard of Wikipedia’s pillars of conduct

This user user:NormanGear started as unsigned a couple of weeks ago, deleting whole historical sentences on the Portuguese people page.

I identified the user IP as based in Madrid, Spain. I had previously asked for Admin's to make this page semi-protected due to similar incidents: The malicious edits are invariably from Brazilians and Spaniards- both nations with different historical hang ups against Portugal. One administrator made the page semi-protected for a few days as the username:NormanGear kept on reverting my entries and accusing me of harassment because they were adding material which was sourced: The only point they were trying to make was that Portuguese people had Jewish and Berber ancestry which should be made very clear. The Portuguese people page already is linked to “The Genetic History of the Iberian Peninsula” where the “Moorish” topic is amply covered and sourced. This same user complained about me (I have been editing for years and happy to continue contributing with sourced materials on the topics I most enjoy: Languages and linguistics, history, art, ancient cultures, nature) and had me blocked for 3 days. They have not contributed with anything other than adding on the racially-motivated contents they’ve been doing for the past few weeks. No idea why and frankly I couldn’t care to know where their obsession stems from.

Now, because their only input has been about and I quote ‘the western half of the Iberian Peninsula’, I added their very same piece of text on the ‘Spaniards’ page as Iberian is made up mainly by Spain and therefore, this content is just as relevant to Spain as it is to Portugal. I also had the opportunity to investigate more the “Moors in Spain” topic and found several, very reputable genetic studies on the Jewish and North-African genetic contribution on the Spaniards.

This user REVERTED all my content, claiming it was ‘repetitive’, which it isn’t. See Spaniards history.

I haven’t touched the Portuguese People page in days, but this user clearly is on a “one way” mission and continues to cause disputes with other editors, see Portuguese people history.

For all the reasons above, I ask for this user to be either warned or blocked permanently as they clearly only have one aim in mind:

Make the Portuguese genetically more “Moorish/Jewish” than their Spanish neighbours. Bizarre.

And because this has been going on for a couple of months with Brazilian users who intermittently come to add malicious content, ask for this page to be made semi-protected on a permanent basis.

Many thanks for your assistance Melroross (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Melroross: I changed the unreadable walls of unformatted text copied from history listings to links. For future reference, see WP:DIFFS. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:NormanGear = Continues to delete my entries

This user user:NormanGear started as unsigned a couple of weeks ago, deleting whole historical sentences on the Portuguese People page.

Yet another copy of the section above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people I identified the user IP’s location. I had previously asked for Admin's to make this page semi-protected due to similar incidents: One administrator made the page semi-protected for a few days as the username:NormanGear kept on reverting my entries and accusing me of harassment because they were adding material which was sourced: The only point they were trying to make was that Portuguese people had Jewish and Berber ancestry which should be made very clear. The Portuguese people page is linked to “The Genetic History of the Iberian Peninsula” where the “Moorish” topic is amply covered and sourced. This same user complained about me (I have been editing for years and happy to continue contributing with sourced materials on the topics I most enjoy: Languages and linguistics, history, art, ancient cultures, nature) and had me blocked for 3 days. I admit that this user did cause great frustration. They have not contributed with anything other than adding on the racial contents they’ve been doing for the past few weeks. No idea why and frankly I couldn’t care to know where their obsession stems from. Now, because their only input has been about and I quote ‘the western half of the Iberian Peninsula’, I added their very same piece of text on the ‘Spaniards’ page as Iberian is made up mainly by Spain and therefore, this content is just as relevant to Spain as it is to Portugal. I also had the opportunity to investigate more about the genetic legacy of the “Moors in Spain” and found several, very serious and reputable genetic studies on the Jewish and North-African genetic heritage relevant to the Spaniards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards This user REVERTED all my content, claiming it was ‘repetitive’, which it isn’t. See below: Help Spaniards: Revision history View logs for this page (view filter log) Jump to navigationJump to search Filter revisionsshow External tools: Find addition/removal (Alternate) Find edits by user Page statistics Pageviews Fix dead links For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) curprev 03:17, 31 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 67,060 bytes 0‎ Sentence undo curprev 03:15, 31 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 67,060 bytes +826‎ Added sourced content, reversed without a valid reason by user ‘NormanGear’ undo curprev 02:57, 31 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 66,234 bytes -1‎ Fixed undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 02:53, 31 December 2019‎ Dwo talk contribs‎ m 66,235 bytes -3‎ MOS:ANDOR, MOS:SLASH undothank curprev 02:45, 31 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 66,238 bytes +6‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 02:44, 31 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 66,232 bytes -955‎ Repetitive. There is already a mention of the jewish and berber acestry in some Spaniards. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 02:39, 31 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 67,187 bytes -68‎ Moved the repetition. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 02:15, 31 December 2019‎ Dwo talk contribs‎ m 67,255 bytes -2‎ MOS:ANDOR undothank curprev 01:17, 31 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 67,257 bytes +883‎ Added sourced content undo I haven’t edited the Portuguese People page in days and have no intention to. But this user continues to cause disputes with other editors as you can see below: Portuguese people: Revision history View logs for this page (view filter log) Jump to navigationJump to search Filter revisionsshow External tools: Find addition/removal (Alternate) Find edits by user Page statistics Pageviews Fix dead links For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) curprev 02:51, 31 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 87,588 bytes +4‎ "Some parts of Southern Iberia" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 19:42, 30 December 2019‎ Human Taxonomist talk contribs‎ 87,584 bytes -14‎ undothank curprev 19:38, 30 December 2019‎ Human Taxonomist talk contribs‎ 87,598 bytes +28‎ clean-up undothank curprev 19:23, 30 December 2019‎ Human Taxonomist talk contribs‎ 87,570 bytes +62‎ clean-up of citation for Bycroft et al. undothank curprev 18:38, 30 December 2019‎ Human Taxonomist talk contribs‎ 87,508 bytes +299‎ included the most thorough 2019 study on fine-scale structure of Iberian peninsula; shows about 10% North African ancestry in western and part of southern Iberia, but little or no Jewish or eastern Mediterranean ancestry undothank curprev 17:29, 30 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 87,209 bytes -63‎ Rv. "Southern and western regions" is not the same as "Western half". Wester half is all west, including part of southern Iberia and part of northern Iberia. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 04:20, 30 December 2019‎ Human Taxonomist talk contribs‎ 87,272 bytes +9‎ undothank curprev 04:13, 30 December 2019‎ Human Taxonomist talk contribs‎ 87,263 bytes -114‎ →‎Historical origins and genetics: Aquitanians were in SW Gaul and northern Iberia, ancestors of Basques; they were never in Lusitania undothank curprev 04:03, 30 December 2019‎ Human Taxonomist talk contribs‎ 87,377 bytes -1,558‎ →‎General traits: removed OR undothank curprev 03:54, 30 December 2019‎ Human Taxonomist talk contribs‎ 88,935 bytes -96‎ more accurate wording undothank curprev 22:13, 28 December 2019‎ Monkbot talk contribs‎ m 89,031 bytes +16‎ →‎List of countries by population of Portuguese heritage: Task 15: language icon template(s) replaced (2×); undo Tag: AWB curprev 19:32, 27 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 89,015 bytes +587‎ Recovered the source that was deleted by Melroross without explanation. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 19:14, 27 December 2019‎ BubbaJoe123456 talk contribs‎ 88,428 bytes +134‎ rewrote one sentence for better clarity (no comment on the accuracy of the substance), made some copy edits in the lede undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 18:52, 27 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,294 bytes +13‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:50, 27 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,281 bytes +25‎ Reverted. The source affirms the edition. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 16:22, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,256 bytes +1‎ Disambiguation undo curprev 16:21, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,255 bytes -655‎ Removed sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’s malicious edit once again. Their sole contribution is Mooris/Jewish genetics attempt to Portuguese people only. Going to add ALL sources to Spanish people as Iberia is mainly Spain and the Spanish page desperately tries to hide the Moors and Jews. undo curprev 09:31, 27 December 2019‎ Rodw talk contribs‎ m 88,910 bytes +8‎ Disambiguating links to Berber (link changed to Berbers) using DisamAssist. undothank curprev 18:11, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,902 bytes -1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:10, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,903 bytes +35‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:08, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,868 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:07, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,867 bytes +25‎ Deleted phrase not supported by the source. Added literal phrase from the source itself. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit For all the reasons above, I ask for this user to be once again warned or blocked permanently if they continue with this belligerent conduct. And because this has been going on for a couple of months with random users who intermittently come to add malicious content, ask for this page to be made semi-protected on a permanent basis.

Many thanks for your assistance Melroross (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Melroross (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Can I get a translation from Mightywallotextese? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 04:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked both editors for edit-warring at Spaniards, Norman for 48 hours because it's his first block, and Melroross for one week because it's their second block.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:NormanGear

Already being discussed here, repeating yourself will not make any difference.

This user user:NormanGear started as unsigned a couple of weeks ago, deleting whole historical sentences on the Portuguese people page. I identified the user IP address location and told them, they moved the IP address; after I identified the second IP and told them to stop their disruptive conduct, they once again pretending to be a different editor, continued with their one-themed posts and reverts. I had previously asked for Admin's to make this page semi-protected due to similar incidents: One administrator made the page semi-protected for a few days as the User:NormanGear kept on reverting my entries and accusing me of harassment because they were adding material which was sourced and according to them, relevant: The only point they were trying to make was that Portuguese people had ‘significant’ Jewish and Berber ancestry. The Portuguese people page already is linked to “The Genetic History of the Iberian Peninsula” where the “Moorish” topic is amply covered and sourced. This same user complained about me (I have been editing for years and happy to continue contributing with sourced materials on the topics I most enjoy: Languages and linguistics, history, art, ancient cultures, nature) and had me blocked for 3 days. They have not contributed with anything other than adding on the racial contents they’ve been doing for the past few weeks. No idea why this persistence and frankly I couldn’t care to know. Their only input has been about and I quote ‘the western half of the Iberian Peninsula’, I added their very piece of text on the ‘Spaniards’ page as Iberia is made up mainly by Spain and therefore, this content is just as relevant to Spain as it is to Portugal. I have also had the opportunity to investigate more on the genetic legacy of the “Moors in Spain” found several, very reputable genetic studies on the Jewish and North-African genetic contribution on the Spaniards and added as relevant, sourced content on the Spanish page. This user REVERTED all my content, claiming it was ‘repetitive’, which it isn’t. See Spaniards history. I haven’t edited the Portuguese People page in days and would rather not get involved in another highly unpleasant and counterproductive episode, but this user clearly is on a mission and continues to cause disputes with other editors, as you can see Portuguese people history. For all the reasons above, I ask for this user to be warned or blocked permanently if they continue with their disruptive, one-sided edits and reverts. More importantly, because this has been going on for a couple of months with random users who intermittently come to add malicious content, I ask once again, for this page to be made semi-protected on a permanent basis. Many thanks for your assistance Melroross (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC) You have already said this, and it belongs in the discussion that you started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’, where it was moved the last time you said it. If you continue to start new discussions rather than continue existing ones I very much doubt that anyone will take any notice of what you are saying. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User Melroross (again)

As stated below, continue this this discussion here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Berber of Seville -EEng User Melroross was recently blocked for using an accusative rhetoric [73] ("December 2019"), and he is again doing it after returning from his expulsion in 3 more complains in this page. ([74], [75], [76]). He is now focused on saturating the Lead of the Spaniards article by unnecessarily and unproportionately expanding the Berber and Jewish genetic influence of the Spaniards even though it was previously mentioned in a summary way that there are obviously Spaniards with Berber and Jewish ancestors ([77]). Despite notifying him that he should start a discussion thread in Talk and that he is currently breaking the WP: LEAD style and that he will exceed the 3RR rule ([78]), he continues to reverse the editions.([79], [80]) NormanGear 18:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC) The user:NormanGear keeps trying to find justifications for their edits on the Portuguese people page and conversely, as previously alerted, trying to minimise the same content on the Spaniards equivalent page. They cited their sourced quotes as “significant” for Portuguese but when I added their own text they reverted it immediately. They are now trying to invalidate my editions, this time by invoking Lead saturation and repetition. Please do intervene as this user has only a one sided conduct. They have not engaged on Talk. Instead reverted all my edits once more. Thank you and apologies for having to refer this once again. Melroross (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC) For crying out loud (this is the second time I've had to use this strangled oath in the last few days), can't you put this where it belongs, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’, rather than create a new discussion about the same topic. Because of the way new discussions keep getting created rather than previous ones continued I am inclined to say "a plague on both your houses" rather than to look at who is right and who is wrong here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kenneth Saclote

Kenneth Saclote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from their first block and continued the same exact vandalism and disruptive editing practices that got them blocked the first time. I made a section for this user here a week ago when we were receiving much trouble because of them, but my report fell through the cracks I guess and was never addressed. Now, Kenneth Saclote has continued making more disruptive edits. Many of these acts have occurred on the Miss Universe 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Miss World 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) articles. Kenneth Saclote has added numerous unsourced content or has added fake sources that do not actually support the information they're adding to appear as if the information is actually sourced: Ex., Ex., Ex., Ex., amongst many other instances. Kenneth Saclote additionally is removing sources, claiming that there is no need for them on Wikipedia (Ex. and Ex.). Kenneth Saclote has been given many warnings, including a final warning, but has continued their editing passed each warning and seems to have no interest in following policies or talking to more experienced editors about the problems with their edits. He is making WikiProject Beauty Pageants articles extremely damaged, and we'd like something to be done. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur. As stated before, there may be a WP:CIR issue ☆ Bri (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

On User talk:Kenneth Saclote the editor has been accused of removing sources and of introducing deliberate factual errors. Some of the edits in question may justify admin action, especially since the user was previously blocked in September by User:Ad Orientem for making unsourced changes. I've left a note for Kenneth Saclote here and asked them to explain one of their source removals. Their edit summary was: 'Sources doesn't needed anymore like last year's Wikipedia Draft..' EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Promotional editing and ownership in userspage

I came across Jeremy E York's userpage. To be sure, he's not a new user, but he has it set up to promote his music, which is a violation of what we cannot have in our user pages. To add to that, he has an html comment that greets you when you click the edit button stating:

<  !-- NOTE: I don't care if you are just an regular wikipedian or an administrator, DO NOT make any changes to my user page. If you have a concern, you ASK me on my user talk page. You have no authority to make ANY changes whatsoever to my user page. If you do, it WILL be reported as vandalizism (sic).-->

It's not just at the top, it appears at the beginning of each sub-section..

Normally, I'd clear the self-promotion away and leave him a note on his talk page, but considering that note, it's probably better if an admin addreses this. I have already notified him about this as well.Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I had an ultra quick look through to check for promotionalism that was directed in a paid sense, which I didn't spot any. As such, Necromonger is correct, but probably can be dealt with by Talk Page discussion (just wanted to confirm that no "right this instant" action needed to be taken). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem although I would be happy to remove those comments which don't belong on any page here. The issue for me is the energy spent by a user on their user pages versus energy spent on improving the encyclopedia. There may be a problem in that when I checked recent edits at Richard Marx discography I found they rearranged a link, namely Beautiful Goodbye: the problem is that that link is also on the user page. It might be worth seeing what other edits are performed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If you take a look at my edit history, you'll see that that is incorrect. Main page edit counts far exceeds my user page edit counts. Plus I hadn't really done anything to it in almost a year until just recently. And please state the source of your concern about the Beautiful Goodbye link you say I rearranged. That makes no sense. Jeremyeyork (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeremyeyork, the Richard Marx content on your user page falls, in my reading of policy, on the good side. The extensive promotion of your own music does not. Here is what your userpage could look like with the offending content removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeremyeyork, this comment is not encouraging: "I know that Wiki has their guideline for vandalism but so do I. If I consider something as vandalism, then it's vandalism plain and simple." That's not how it works. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Jeremyeyork I shall remove the promotion of yourself and someone you are connected to from your user page. You do not have the right to create your own rules that over-ride Wikipedia policies. Promotion is not permitted by policy, and that is all. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Throwacoup

User Throwacoup has uploaded about a dozen promotional photographs of M. K. Asante through the years that are likely to not be fheirs. On commons I know how to nominate a batch of photos for deletion, I'm unsure how to do so on enwiki. 1Veertje (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Throwacoup (talk · contribs)
  The uploads are at Special:ListFiles/Throwacoup. Someone understanding image copyright issues is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm an admin on Commons: these are too pro to be accepted without OTRS verification. 1Veertje (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  I am rather dubious on these images. For one thing, the resolution and the lack of EXIF speak of images taken from somewhere.

  One particular image, File:MK Asante 2013 photo.jpg, appears elsewhere on the Internet and is credited to "Lee Steffen" which appears to be Lee Steffen - that article says they cooperate with MK Asante. Depending on how exactly this cooperation works, the copyright might belong eiter to Mr. Steffen or Mr. Asante (if it's a work for hire situation).

  Since it's not that many files, I'd nominate them all at WP:FFD, manually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject, the article M. K. Asante could be a bit less fawning. Apparently he had a troubled yet profound youth in Philadelphia, whatever that means. EEng 21:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2019_December_30#Throwacoup --1Veertje (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed split

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

---

• Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, we discussed splitting the article Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen to a new article. This editor(Onetwothreeip) participated in the discussion and I suggested Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War, just like we have Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War. This discussion took place months ago. Three days ago the editor (Onetwothreeip) who was opposing the split, splitted the article to NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War without discussing it. There is not a single mention of the word NATO in the talk page. The article got nominated for deletion. I am afraid that this will lead to the split being unaccepted because it has been nominated for deletion. So can any admin remove that article and I will do the split that most editors agreed with and it is consistent with other articles titles? --SharabSalam (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Update, I have changed the title per the discussion of the split and also added other content of the involvement of other parties.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion favoured splitting the sections, and I supported the split as well. I don't have strong views on what the title of the new article should be, so I boldly named it with "NATO" as the talk page discussion didn't come to an agreement on any name. The article only discusses American and British involvement (some from France as well), so it's not accurate to call this "Foreign" as there are many other foreign parties to the conflict. I don't mind the name of the article being changed so really we can snow close this as no further action needed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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

• Rosguill, this editor has split the article to a new article called NATO involvement without any discussion about it. The term NATO is not even mentioned in the article talk page. Isn't this disruptive? The article title was designed to be called POVFORK. It was as if it was saying delete me. Now an editor who obviously seems not to be informed about the subject of the article is insisting that the article is a POVFORK even after I added all parties and fixed the title issue.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, per the comment that they made above, Onetwothreeip doesn't have any issue with you renaming the page. The disagreements and misunderstanding related to the AfD is something that should be discussed in the AfD discussion. I don't see any reason for this issue to be addressed at ANI at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Rosguill, So... are you saying that it was OKAY for him to just split the article to that name without even informing us? This whole AfD wouldnt have occurred if this editor didnt title it that way. Yet, this editor gets no warning, absolutely nothing for this disruptive act.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, the discussion was stale, there was a consensus to split but no consensus of what title to move it to. NATO was not mentioned in the discussion, so it was a valid attempt at a Bold solution to the problem. Perhaps Onetwothreeip should have realized that you were likely to oppose this, but I see nothing sanctionable here. If this was behavior that was being repeated over and over again despite it having been contested and brought to that editors attention, then ANI would be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Rosguill, okay, this editor was opposing the split that we were proposing. I have little doubt that they created that article with that obvious POV wrong title so that it gets deleted and if we attempted to split the article in a neutral way we would be referred to that AfD. Notice that he didn't vote in that discussion .--SharabSalam (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, please assume good faith of other editors. You have now repeatedly accused Onetwothreeip of opposing the split, despite their first comment on it having been Strongly agree with splitting the article, you have provided no diffs substantiating this accusation, and Onetwothreeip has specifically asked you to stop misconstruing their position. As for not voting, that's their prerogative, and given what a trainwreck that AfD is (in part due to your unilateral decision to move the article while the AfD discussion was ongoing), it is in no way evidence of wrongdoing. Finally, please stop misgendering Onetwothreeip: their user page clearly states that they prefer they/them pronouns. I would strongly suggest that you stop trying to get an admin to impose sanctions at this time and go discuss the content dispute underlying this at the AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Rosguill, no they were opposing the proposal I gave with nonsensical reason. The problem with that is Saudi Arabia is a foreign country to Yemen as well. We could have an article for Iranian involvement, Saudi Arabian involvement, and involvement from all other countries. I want an admin to solve the problem in the deletion discussion. People are coming there thinking that the title is the POVFORK title. How can I solve this issue. The editor who nominated the article for deletion is not well-informed about the subject and obviously he saw the fucked up title and thought that it is POVSPLIT.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  This isn't the right place to discuss this, but I did oppose the article being titled as "foreign intervention" when it was only about the United States and the United Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is also a foreign country to Yemen, and its involvement in Yemen also constitutes foreign intervention/involvement. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  Onetwothreeip, what in God's name is wrong with you? Who said we are going to add only the UK, France and the US? We were going to add Saudi Arabia, foreign private contractors, Iran etc. That was going to happen but now, you the one who only put UK, US and France only. And the title, wow. NATO?!!. I mean do you realize that there was no mention of the word "NATO" in the article(Not just the talk page) whatsoever?.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  Please remain civil. One of the proposed splits was for the involvement from United States and United Kingdom. The following is what you said on the talk page. Just to let you know we will have three sections removed from this article "Allegations of Iranian involvement" "Western involvement" "Private military involvement". What I have split is essentially the "Western involvement" part that you clearly said you wanted to split. I decided to title it with NATO rather than Western, but the title isn't final. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

  Onetwothreeip, what? I was referring to Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. The reason we wanted to split is to remove content from that big sized article. How come Grayshark gets it and you don't? Your split was totally against the consensus in the talk page. Also, who lied to you and told you that you can boldly split the article to any title you want when there is a discussion about the title name and most editors have agreed for a different title than yours and your title is not even mentioned in the talk page?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Cban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip

An IP editor provided further examples of questionable article splitting behavior from Onetwothreeip, documented here and here, and here. While any one of these examples could be dismissed as either a bold edit or a careless mistake, taken together they begin to add up to disruptive behavior. I would thus tentatively propose implementing a ban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill They were certainly bold edits but they weren't careless, and two of the three you have raised are still in effect. At List of unsolved deaths, I agreed to revert the split that I made, and I am glad that we came to an agreement to split the article in a different way. For Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, I became engaged in a very lengthy discussion where another editor was accusing me of causing a split article to be an orphan, which wasn't true, but I added more links to the article anyway. Although this editor did not disagree with the actual split that I made, they were trying to canvass other editors to report me to ANI by copy-pasting their grievances to other talk pages that I was participating on. Likewise with American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War, this was only an issue that resulted from the use of list defined references, and I was determined to find a quick solution, which involved me seeking out assistance while another editor had reverted the split. Once we were able to resolve the errors around references, we promptly restored the split.

I have certainly made bold splits of very large articles, and whenever there has been disagreement about how to split them, I have sought out the views of participants at the talk pages. The vast majority of the splits I have made weren't contested, but of those that were, I am proud that myself and others have been able to come to good solutions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The splits do appear to have all eventually been resolved satisfactorily. However, the talk page discussions immediately following the splits themselves suggest that other editors nevertheless have found them a bit reckless. I think that even if we resolve this situation without any blocks or bans, you do need to be a bit more careful with these article splits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I certainly take that on board. I genuinely don't want other editors to feel negatively towards this, so I intend to take things easier moving forward. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support Cban I am so sick and tired of this editor behavior. Look at the mess they has created. As Corker1 said in Onetwothreeip's talk page,

"Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure describes the following six steps that editors need to take when considering and conducting a page split:

Step 1: Create a discussion

Step 2: Add notice

Step 3: Discuss

Step 4: Close the discussion and determine the consensus

Step 5: Perform the splitting

Step 6: Clean up

You performed Step 5" They always performs step 5 only. And this one was very likely a WP:Pointy split.

Pinging other editors who have had the same issue with Onetwothreeip, BullRangifer, AndewNguyen, JalenFolf, Isaidnoway and Akld guy. Hopefully, I didn't miss anyone.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion to split, the talk page wanted to split it, but it didn't come to an agreement on the title. I took a bold action to split and to give it a default title, which can be changed in the future. You don't seem to actually be objecting to the split, you claim to have supported splitting, the title is now the one that you have chosen, and you have accused me of being opposed to the split, so what exactly is the problem here?

As for splitting articles generally, there have on a few occasions been issues, and they have been resolved quite properly through the talk page. Some of the people you have linked have nothing to do with splitting articles, they are editors with whom I have had disagreements on completely separate matters. This is quite obviously an attempt at WP:CANVASSING.

However, as I want these actions to be more harmonious in the future, I will be taking things slower and seek greater consultation where possible. Let's put all this drama behind us. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing? The links above and the discussion above are totally related to them. We should actually have sent them an ANI notice. It doesnt surprise me that this isn't your first time to make these splits. I am surprised that editors haven't raised the issue yet to the ANI.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That's because most splits have been completely uncontroversial, and whenever there have been issues, they have been discussed and resolved through the talk pages. I would like for us to see if we can resolve the issues ourselves, without a noticeboard. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, the problem here is you. We were discussing this. Most editors agreed with Foreign involvement that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran etc etc. You went an made a completely irrelevant title with no discussion whatsoever, against the consensus and now wants us to discuss it? It is nominated for deletion, we cant split the article to an article for foreign involvement anymore. There is nothing called bold split when there is a discussion open and most editors agree with the title foreign involvement. You have repeatedly made splits without going through Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. You are the problem here. Everything was fine until you made that split.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Most editors agreed with Foreign involvement that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran etc etc. That's the entire article though. What split article(s) would you have preferred? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, What? Thats not the entire article? As I said we were going to include all these involvements and add a {{main|Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen}} over Saudi or Arab coalition involvement. Can you tell me why would you perform a totally different split without getting to the talk page and discussing it first and getting consensus?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. The talk page was discussing and favouring splitting out the "Western involvement" section, which detailed the involvement of United States, United Kingdom and France. What would you have preferred to split out? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, nope. The majority of them were supporting "Foreign involvement" see even the latest comment by Grayshark. I understand that you think your opinion is superior to other editors opinion and that you have got no respect to other editors prospectives as shown by your repeatedly splitting with no consensus and that you chose to name it to "NATO involvement" regardless of the discussion regardless of who is going to disagree. You don't even have to discuss the new title, you are superior to us. We don't have the wisdom that you have.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be discussed here, it should be discussed on the relative article talk pages. I agreed with the consensus that determined the article should be split in this way, but I certainly admit that I acted boldly in naming the new article. I did not intend for this title to be permanent, and you have decided to change the title yourself, and I have not objected. I have to ask you though, what would you have preferred to split from the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, the problem is that the article got nominated because of your name and because of you bold split. You repeatedly have performed bold splits against a consensus in the talk page. The Cban will prevent further disruption. It is necessary because you have proved that you learned nothing from previous warnings. It will not affect your editing or your discussions in the talk page. It will make you discuss and listen to other editors prospective. Do you really want to perform more disruptive splits again?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

09:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The talk page clearly supported a split. I certainly don't perform bold splits when there is a consensus against splitting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support Cban: @Onetwothreeip: @BullRangifer:@JalenFolf: @Isaidnoway: @Akld guy: @SharabSalam: @Rosguill: Onetwothreeip has repeatedly refused to correct many of the errors that Onetwothreeip's splits have created. See, for example, User talk:Onetwothreeip#Your changes to "Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker", where I noted that Onetwothreeip made only minor corrections to the errors in Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, which Onetwothreeip's split of Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker had created.

In response to my complaints that Onetwothreeip's corrections were inadequate, Onetwothreeip stated that I should make these corrections myself. Onetwothreeip cited Wikipedia:Do it yourself when making these statements. I consider this to be just one of many examples of Onetwothreeip's failures to adequately collaborate with other editors after Onetwothreeip split articles without assuring that the splits did not significantly damage the pages that the split created.

For further information, see my comments on Talk:Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker#Split page. Onetwothreeip did not respond to any of these comments. As I stated on that Talk page, Onetwothreeip did not revert the page split or correct most of the errors that the split had created. Among those errors were:

The loss of 16 links to references that Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker contained but which Onetwothreeip did not copy to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker.

The loss of much of the context of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, as Onetwothreeip did not correct this loss after an editor placed a Template:Context tag at the top of the page.

Onetwothreeip did not copy into Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker the Template:Use mdy dates that was located at the top of Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, but which was retained only in Mythology of Benjamin Banneker.

The split made Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker into an orphan that Onetwothreeip did not correct.

The split carried over to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker many references that were irrelevant to that page.

I have therefore needed to make these corrections myself. This took a lot of time.

In addition, Onetwothreeip removed comments that I have made on User talk:Onetwothreeip without notifying me or performing an "undo" action, which would automatically notify me of these actions. Onetwothreeip may have previously performed such actions earlier in response to other critical comments that editors have placed on User talk:Onetwothreeip. Corker1 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

To be completely honest here, I did my best to ascertain what issues you had but it was difficult to understand what you were trying to say. When I split the article, I can assure everyone that I did not create any errors. The issues with the articles were part of the original article before I came to it.

Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker was not made into an orphan, and Corker1 demonstrated that they were completely misinterpreting the definition of an orphan article. They were relying on a definition that described an orphan page as one that does not have links from other mainspace articles. This of course simply means links from any articles, with mainspace meaning that there is no prefix before the page name, such as "Talk:" or "User:". Corker1 believed mainspace meant the article had to be linked from either Commemorations or Benjamin Banneker.

For some reason, circular discussion kept happening about this on my talk page. I decided to add more links to the new article, but mostly I could not help any further so I suggested that Corker1 do the edits himself. Corker1 was making these demands that I make particular and specific edits, which I did not follow. I certainly didn't tell them to do these edits on their own immediately after they raised concerns with me, this was after some prolonged period where I was being bludgeoned with these demands. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Since I've been pinged twice now, I will comment to prevent further pings. Thanks. I was only a party to one of the splits mentioned above, the Timeline of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War, split from the parent article, American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War. The split simultaneously created several hundred cite errors in both articles seen here and also here. Those cite errors (over 500 of them) were eventually fixed by myself and another editor. I have no problem with editor's making bold edits, but if you choose to be bold, make sure those edits aren't going to be controversial or against consensus. And if your bold edit gets reverted, don't be upset and don't edit war, instead, discuss on the talk page and obtain a consensus for your bold edit. Furthermore, when making a bold edit - If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself. I would argue that any reasonable person would recommend fixing those several hundred cite errors yourself, instead of relying on (or hoping) that someone else will come along and fix the unambiguous errors for you. Instead of a cban, I would prefer that this editor make a firm commitment to follow the steps listed above (especially step 6: clean up), when performing any further bold splits, and listen to other editor's concerns and take on board some of the advice offered. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The simple reason why I didn't resolve those errors myself is that I didn't know how to. If I knew how to, I most certainly would have done so, and I did not anticipate the errors occurring. Whenever I see errors on Wikipedia that I can fix myself, I fix them whether or not I decided to make edits that day. While it's unfortunate that there were alarming messages generated in the References sections, I'd like to point out that no references were actually lost, it was just that there were redundant references in the section that weren't being defined. I was trying to get this fixed by asking people at different pages how I could implement the solution myself, and someone volunteered to do the bulk of that work. I did not ask anybody to fix the problem for me.

I feel proud of my cooperations with other editors to find solutions, particularly ones who I have disagreed with. As a result of this controversy, collaborating with other editors is most certainly something I will give even more attention to. I can absolutely give you that assurance, as it's in my own interests to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The simple reason why I didn't resolve those errors myself is that I didn't know how to. If I knew how to, I most certainly would have done so, and I did not anticipate the errors occurring. That pretty well sums up why you shouldn't be splitting pages, then. Grandpallama (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, in light of their response, I have struck out my comment and now support a cban. Frankly, I just don't believe they didn't anticipate the errors occurring, when the day before when they trimmed the infobox, they created multiple cite errors, which I reverted with an edit summary detailing how the article used list-defined references – diff, they then reverted my edit with an edit summary that said Unused references should be removed from the article as a result - diff. So how could they not know, or anticipate, that the same exact cite errors would occur again when removing a large chunk of content from the article the next day. I also believe they saw the cite errors they created in the reference section in bold red text, which clearly states - (see the help page), where it explains in issues and resolution on how to fix the cite errors. I don't understand why they were asking people at different pages how I could implement the solution myself, when the solution was staring them in the face. Additionally, if they used the show preview button, and saw the hundreds of cite errors generated from their edit, and didn't [know how to] resolve those errors myself, they shouldn't have made the edit until they did know how to resolve those errors. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: and @Isaidnoway:, I feel that I didn't express myself how I intended to. I completely agree that what I did was wrong, I was just trying to explain that I was trying to act in good faith and I made a mistake in not properly previewing the article before I published the split. I will most certainly agree from now on that I will be very carefully looking over the result of the attempted split, and if there are errors that I cannot immediately resolve, I will most certainly not make that split until they can be. Please do not take my previous comments as trying to justify what I did, as I am admitting that I shouldn't have gone about it the way that I did. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

When I said that I did not anticipate the errors, I am saying that I did not take enough care to make sure there were no errors. I am not claiming for a second that I made sure there weren't errors, which was entirely my fault and I won't be repeating that. I certainly realise this and I regret my actions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not just agree not to perform any splits, and leave them to other editors who are more proficient in this area? That is a very small area of Wikipedia editing, so there would be plenty of other things that you could do. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made about 150 split articles and the vast majority have occurred without any issues. The problem here was that this particular article used list defined references, which I was not familiar with. I'm fairly proficient in splitting articles generally, but I admit this was an instance where I should have slowed right down and been more careful not to generate any errors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Exactly. Onetwothreeip, I don't understand why? There are many things you can do other than the splits? The damage you did to the Yemeni civil war was so unacceptable. This is the lightest sanction that you can get for all the damage you have done in the Yemen civil war area. However, I will try to fix this issue slowly and carefully on the talk page and see how we can perform a split. I will start in the sandbox, I will work to fix any real issues. See if anyone is going to suggest a change and then recreate the article (if it got deleted) or edit it (if it didn't get deleted). Unlike you, I am not going to split the article to an article with a different title that the editors have agreed with and on top of that you didn't notify us. I only knew of the split when I saw the deletion discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

What damage are you talking about? The deletion discussion is criticising the content of the article, which I have not written. Again, the talk page agreed to a split, but didn't come to an agreement on a title, so I boldly chose a neutral title which can be changed at any time. You changed the title of that article yourself, so there doesn't appear to be any problem there. As for notifying you, I clearly described the split in the edit summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You really need to show better judgment about where bold editing is appropriate. It's fine for articles about computer games or pop songs or football teams, but for articles about serious geopolitical issues much more care should be taken. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. I certainly don't want to cause any controversy or distress, so I can commit to taking much more care around potentially contentious articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:Your message above to Phil Bridger stated that you: "can commit to taking much more care around potentially contentious articles. This is not an adequate committment.
As you can read in the discussion on this page, the community is reaching a consensus to impose Cban (Community bans and restrictions) on you. Your repeated refusals to adequately respond to comments that a number of editors have placed on this page and on your user page is helping to achieve that consensus. I therefore suggest that you immediately place a message on this page that states that you will stop splitting Wikipedia articles. Corker1 (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not all I said. I also said that I will make sure all article splits do not result in errors before the splits are made, and I agree that contentious topics deserve greater care. Please feel free to ask me any questions you would like for me to respond, either here or my talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: That is not enough. You have made similar statements in the past. Nevertheless, your splits continue to result in many errors.

Further, you do not inform prior editors that you intend to split articles. When they learn about your inadequate splits, you do not satisfactorily respond to their complaints and suggestions.

It is difficult to split articles without correcting errors that the splits create. As many comments above, in the Talk pages of articles that you have split and in User talk:Onetwothreeip indicate, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are either incapable or unwilling to do this.

I therefore again suggest that you immediately place a message on this page that states that you will stop splitting Wikipedia articles. Corker1 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

What past statements are you referring to? Whenever there have been issues, I have been more than willing to discuss them, in the few times that there was any dispute regarding splits I made. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Support a ban on splitting articles, largely based on the pattern that has been laid out of problematic splits in the past, the repeated acknowledgments by Onetwothreeip that they aren't prepared to deal with the damage repair that is necessitated by their overly bold splitting, and the ongoing IDHT here in response to editors asking them to voluntarily stay away from splitting. Grandpallama (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Can you explain what you are referring regarding repeated acknowledgments by Onetwothreeip that they aren't prepared to deal with the damage repair that is necessitated by their overly bold splitting? What I have said is that if I split an article in the future, I will check the preview with great care and promptly deal with any errors. If there are errors which I cannot deal with, I would then not perform the split. My mistake was that I did not properly look at the preview to find these errors, and I completely accept that. The purpose should be to prepare articles so that repair isn't required from the start.

I can confirm that I am voluntarily staying away from splitting, I have done so and I will not be splitting any articles for some time, but I do eventually want to return to splitting articles. I have made about 150 articles from splitting, and only a small few have resulted in any significant concern to this extent, with this being the first time that I have been reported to the AN/I over splitting articles. In the last few weeks I have been attempting to perform a greater amount of splits in a shorter amount of time than I have been doing in the past, which I deeply regret. If/when I return to splitting articles, I most certainly commit to taking much greater care than I have been taking as of recently. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have done so and I will not be splitting any articles for some time, but I do eventually want to return to splitting articles. And therein lies the need for the ban from splitting. Grandpallama (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: @Onetwothreeip: I completely agree with Grandpallama. Like a number of discussions on User talk:Onetwothreeip, this one has gone on too long. As Onetwothreeip is not willing to agree to permanently stop splitting articles, it is necessary to issue a Cban on Onetwothreeip's splitting. Corker1 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

[O]nly a small few have resulted in any significant concern to this extent. Meanwhile, another split getting nominated. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Teen_Wolf_minor_characters and this ANI discussion is being referenced in the deletion discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing against that article being deleted. The issue there is entirely regarding content and not that this was a split article. I didn't want to make judgements on whether the content was notable or not before splitting, given it already exists. It doesn't appear that this ANI discussion has been brought up in that AfD. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think that this discussion is moving in circles at this point, with Onetwothreeip insisting that a ban is unnecessary and ban supporters remaining unmoved. I think that the consensus is in favor of the ban but would prefer if another admin closed this, as the cban is a remedy I proposed even if I haven't formally voted for it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• (ec with Rosguill's post above) Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into the mix but I oppose CBAN and support more-specific voluntary commitments – There is a problem here, but I'm not convinced it requires a CBAN. Three examples have been put forward:
  • List of unsolved deaths – It appears everyone involved agreed this article should be split, just not how. There was a discussion on the talk page about splitting that had slowed down [81]. Then 123IP performed a split. An editor complained on 123IP's talk page [82] (I thought the complaint was rude but 123IP's responses were cordial) about how the split was done. 123IP reverted. More cordial discussion on the talk page followed. The complaining editor then performed the split a different way, into List of unsolved murders and List of unsolved serial killer murders. The latter subarticle was draftified (I think as part of WP:NPP); it's been three months and it's still at Draft:List of unsolved serial killer murders. I would call this an unsuccessful split, by an editor other than 123IP, and I don't see this example as an example of 123IP doing anything wrong.
  • Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker – I strongly disagree with Corker's point on 123IP's talk page "Mythology_and_commemorations_of_Benjamin_Banneker" (reproduced above in this thread), essentially suggesting that WP:PROSPLIT doesn't allow WP:BOLD article splitting. PROSPLIT specifically allows BOLD splitting. I don't agree that after splitting, it is upon 123IP to draft the new content that Corker thought should have been added to the article. The editor doing the splitting doesn't have to make the resulting sub-articles exactly the way another editor wants it. The second editor is free to add the content to the sub-article if they think more content is needed (e.g., to provide context). However, I do agree that leaving one of the sub-articles as an orphan, otherwise not appropriately updating backlinks, and leaving citation errors, is not the right way to perform a BOLD split. So, I do see this as an example of a legitimate problem that was brought to 123IP's attention that 123IP did not adequately address.
  • American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War – Same as above; reference errors need to be corrected as part of a BOLD split. However, I understand that someone unfamiliar with list-style references may not have anticipated it or known how to fix it. The answer is that an editor must learn this before splitting any other articles that use list based references. Also, I agree with Phil that this was not an appropriate topic for BOLD splitting, but I think 123IP has taken that feedback on board as well.
  • That a sub-article is nominated for deletion after a split (e.g., List of Teen Wolf minor characters) doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the split.
  • So I think there are problems here, but that 123IP's eagerness to take these concerns on board means no CBAN is necessary. My big problem with a CBAN is that if we just prevent 123IP from splitting articles, then 123IP will never learn how to fix their mistakes–they'll never learn, for example, how to split an article with list based references. Instead of being prevented from splitting articles, I think what 123IP needs is more practice splitting articles. It won't benefit the encyclopedia to prevent a volunteer who wants to do a particular task, from doing that task. It benefits the encyclopedia if we teach the volunteer how to do the task correctly.
  • I agree that more-specific voluntary commitments from 123IP would go a long way towards assuaging editors' concerns that further splits won't be disruptive (e.g., cause citation errors, or orphaned sub-articles), and it'll allow 123IP to continue volunteering their time and also to become better at splitting articles. Specifically, I would suggest the following (some of which 123IP has already said they'd do):
    1. Be more conservative about which articles to split BOLDly – e.g., not major geopolitical topics – with the understanding that too much inappropriate BOLD splitting may lead to a future ban from BOLD splitting
    2. Not leave any orphaned sub-articles post-split
    3. Not leave any citation errors post-split – This may mean practicing a split in userspace by copying over an entire article, splitting it into two articles in userspace, then cleaning up the userspace sub-articles, to make sure 123IP can get to a place where there are no citation errors in the new sub-articles. If 123IP has trouble doing that, they can ask for help. Once 123IP is confident they can technically perform the split, then they can do the "real" split in mainspace. Yes, this means doing the split twice, and it will take 123IP twice as long, but in cases where 123IP isn't sure of their technical skills (e.g., list-based references), this is preferable to leaving citation errors in mainspace for others to clean up. If 123IP performs a BOLD split and sees citation errors they can't fix, they should self-revert the BOLD split, practice in their userspace, then do it again when they have it down.
    4. Not edit war over reverted splits
  • Maybe these list items should be re-worded, or entries added or removed, but I would generally support something like this over a total ban from splitting, because a total ban won't do the encyclopedia any good. – Levivich 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree with these commitments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban from splitting, especially a "permanent" one. Not seeing the IDHT of 123ip other editors seem to see. 123ip has stopped splitting and has repeatedly said they will take more care in future splits. Bans are preventative, not punitive. Unwanted behavior has stopped, a commitment to change has been made. Let's give a bit of rope. TelosCricket (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing issues

Onetwothreeip has alleged that SharabSalam has improperly canvassed some editors to this discussion. There was some back and forth discussion of this on my user talk page between those two editors here. From reading through the linked discussion that SharabSalam provided to justify the pings, three editors, JalenFolf, AndewNguyen, and BullRangifer were pinged in that discussion but did not participate, making it unnecessary to call them to this discussion. Further editors who did participate but have not been pinged were AlanM1, RopeTricks, MrX, and Drmies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I apologize, I accidentally pinged them because their usernames were in that discussion but I didnt notice that they didnt participate. I dont know any of them. This doesn't change the fact that Onetwothreeip splits are mostly disruptive. I am actually having a fever and a sore throat and I was going to take break from wikipedia but when I noticed the deletion discussion and that this editor has split the article without notifying us so I returned and reported them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

For those who I didnt ping, I pinged only those who have had problems regarding Onetwothreeip splits as I said above. The ip comment in that discussion tricked me because the IP pinged those editors and said In the past few days all of you have recently commented on similar problems this user has caused.. I assumed that the IP was replying telling them about the split Onetwothree has made. Again I apologize. This happened because I was so sick that time and I was even making a lot of mistakes in my comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth SharabSalam, I don't hold any grudges against you. Whatever happens, I hope we can both participate in the discussions and cooperate on what to do with the articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Louis Epstein (12.144.5.2) and transgender topics

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

---

Note. 12.144.5.2 is not able to edit AN/I right now due to protections. They can only post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts for the time being.

• 12.144.5.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Louis Epstein is all around a net positive to this project except regarding transgender-related topics where they get into drawn out fights to push an anti-LGBT agenda. I try to be tolerant of individuals who express minority viewpoints, but Louis Epstein shows no signs of stopping this campaign even if others find it disruptive. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be limited to talk page comments, and I don't see any personal attacks in there. While his position is abhorrent, so long as he neither attacks others nor disrupts actual article content, I'm not sure what we can do. People are allowed to, in a non-disruptive ways, express horrible thoughts, even if they are horrible. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that prevents this. --Jayron32 01:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: My main concerns is this conversation has gotten pretty derailed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: So it's OK for him to say that he's "forced" to go to Kiwi Farms to find out the deadnames of trans people, in response to my comment that that forum is dedicated to misgendering and mocking trans people including myself? Funcrunch (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Given Kiwi Farms' connections to neo-Nazism, harassment, doxing and even to terrorism, this should ring massive alarm bells. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have made a few attempts to persuade them to step back from this topic and edit constructively on other topics. I am disappointed that they have not done so but, on a careful reading of their talk page, I see that this entirely consistent with their past behaviour. They clearly do understand that policy does not endorse their behaviour. They are just unable to accept the policies when they conflict with their own agenda. I think that they are most likely genuinely unaware of just how far they have departed from common decency in their campaign. They are not able to just let it lie and focus on other topics. It is almost tragic that they probably still think that they are one of the good guys even as they do horrible things like deadnaming.
  When I expand the "stale" warnings section on their talk page, I see that they have been editing disruptively on transgender topics since 2017. They got their first warning for this in on 18 May 2017. Mathglot gently tried to talk them down but this was met with fundamental rejection almost identical to their more recent argumentation elsewhere. After that they got a few warnings (including final warnings) for adding unreferenced material to BLPs which was not related to trans issues but shows a more general lack of respect for policy. By 6 September 2019 they were back to the anti-trans stuff, actually deadnaming an article subject in Talk and moaning when I redacted the alleged details. (This was the first time they came to my attention.) It went downhill from there as shown in the links above.
  The behavioural pattern is clear and it is consistent over more than two years. There is not even the slightest sign of any learning or growth. Even if they intend to act in good faith (which seems likely but not certain) it is clear that they are so far from neutrality that they can not even see it from their current location. I see this as a mixture of WP:NPOV, WP:CIR and WP:IDHT issues.
  I think a topic ban is the way to go. I would favour a topic ban covering all sex, gender and sexuality topics including all biographies of LGBTQIA people whether living or dead. If they can accept and stick to that then I think that this offers them their best chance for remaining active on Wikipedia without disrupting it. If not, well, we tried... --DanielRigal (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Who's Louis Epstein? GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I assume that this is the name that the IP based user has identified themselves as somewhere although I was not aware of this and I don't know the details. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: That's 12.144.5.2's real name per their talk page. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Strange, why he didn't just create an account. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

To push back against concerted efforts to push a "pro-LGBT" agenda is not pushing an "anti-LGBT agenda".Just insisting that NPOV does not mean complete embrace of "LGBT" talking points.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

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

• For those who enjoy a walk down memory lane, the subject of this thread is one of the old "World's Oldest People" gang who waged a long battle against putting a space after a comma or period in order to "save server space"; see [83] (and numerous other entertaining threads on that subject on that same page). And this isn't his first rodeo on the issue at hand [84]. EEng 05:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (completely unrelated new editor) Sorry for posting underneath the hat, but someone will likely have to go through all recent (mainspace) contributions of the IP and correct their spelling, uhm, peculiarities. I guess I'm going to make a start. Mvbaron (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I am more impressed that this user seems to have managed to keep the same IP address for sixteen years. EDIT: Oh, according to their statement on their talk page it's because they own the company to which it's assigned. --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Apparently he provides dial-up internet access to senior citizens with modem-equipped Pentium towers and CRT monitors running Windows NT. EEng 01:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Coloursred1 and edits in tennis

Moved from WP:AN

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

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

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

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

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

That's not counting the aggression [85]. And combined with their refactoring [86], [87] [88] of both the OP's comment and my response to it—!!! NOTHERE, anyone...? ——SN54129 14:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Libertarianism

Not necessarily urgent, but would an uninvolved admin mind having a look over the "Neologism tag. Do not remove until resolved." section at Talk:Libertarianism. The discussion appears to have deteriorated to the point of focusing on other editors, their beliefs as regards the article subject, and foruming of the article subject itself; no longer a discussion of potential changes or improvements. I have tried to "hat" the off-topic parts of the discussion[89], but have been reverted[90]. Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Death of User:AryanTheArticleArtist

Hi I’m Aryan’s sister Aditi and I would like to let you know that my brother Aryan Singh or User:AryanTheArticleArtist passed away on the 3rd of April . I never knew my brother edited Wikipedia that is why I didn’t inform earlier. 2402:3A80:A18:82B9:5E4:AA54:957E:1456 (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that, Aditi – please accept my condolences. I don't think I ever crossed paths with Aryan, but I see that he was vigilant in protecting the project from vandalism, making valuable contributions which will be missed. Thank you for letting us know; again, I'm very sorry to hear this sad news. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass categorization from IP 83.61.41.226

An anonymous editor is on a campaign to categorize French communes (municipalities) with Category:States and territories established in 2019, which is inappropriate for a town. See definition at territory. Eric ^talk 16:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them and reverted the changes. I'm not sure what they think they're doing. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. As I was tediously reverting some of the changes, I was wondering if you had a way to bulk-revert an editor's changes across articles. Eric ^talk 17:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a way, but it wasn't working for me. I'll have to troubleshoot it. Acroterion (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, then extra thanks for doing all those reverts! Eric ^talk 20:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Soramire slow edit war, promo on Kadaknath chicken

File:IMG-20190227-WA0022.jpg

TLDR summary of this thread: An editor is changing the lead image on an article about a chicken from a picture of the chicken (left) to a picture of a man holding the chicken (right), because the editor wants everyone to know that this man is the only man from whom this chicken should be purchased. Sounds legit. – Levivich 21:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Soramire (talk · contribs · count)

Since August 2019, Soramire (an SPA) has been at a slow edit war with multiple users on Kadaknath. Basically, they have been inserting image of their preference (uplaoded by themselves). They were also trying to add sneaky promotion including the farmer being the only authorised person by govt to breed the chicken breed, the origin of the chicken being the same as of where the farmer is located, and the nickname of the chicken based on the location. But these things are also corroborated by reliable source (provided in article). But Soramire pushing this information in the article is plain promotional as they are "trying to promote" (edit summary) the farmer.

Soramire's photo addition was reverted by many editors, ranging from IPs to an admin. Surprisingly though, Soramire were never warned on their talkpage. Even though from their edit summaries they were justifying their edits in near-native English fluency.

When I realised this issue, at I didnt try to communicate them, but I realised the image was a doubtful copyright violation, and nominated it for deletion on commons, and notified them on enwiki as well. In a few hours/a day, Soramire uploaded the same image with meta-data. At that time, I tried to explain them about the problems with their editing, and 3RR without templating. They did the same edits adter that. So then I templated them (pretty pictures). And then explained them in plain English about WP:NOTPROMO, and problem with their photo. Yet again, they added back the same photo.

This is an issue of "i dont hear it", WP:CIR, COI/UPI, and promotional edits. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

PS: The article doesnt have much editing history except the back n forth of reverts, so it is easy to go throuh. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The image of farmer uploaded by us is the only certified farmer for this breed. It can be, as it is a paper certificate of authenticity by the govt nodel agency. We put his picture as to establish the correct facts. Unknowingly farmers have got scammed by miscreants tuneing to 700-800cr rupees where they have been sold fake mixed breeds. This farmer got certified and should be promoted for his hard work to preserve this breed. People with wrong motive are editing the page and we are trying to keep it intact. Even the replaced image of bird is a mixed breed bird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soramire (talk • contribs) 23:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Soramire, edit warring is against Wikipedia's policies. If your changes are reverted, the appropriate procedure is to start a discussion on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. If you do not acknowledge this and refrain from edit warring, you will be blocked from editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not correct, I am a SME on this subject as I am in my official capacity to save farmers from getting into scammers hands. You guys are reverting the edits without talking to me and asking me to discuss this with editors who dont even understand the basic difference between a mixed breed and pure breed birds. The editors have removed references about the Nodel agency appointed to preserve this breed. They even removed references of govt of India scientist who have spent their entire carrier in preservation of this breed. Just to give you exacts, this effort has been going on since 1980's. Most of the edits who edited the articles had intrests to supress the correct information so that unknowingly farmers fell in their hands and get scammed. Just google kadaknath scam and you will all media coverage. They all will show despite of a dedicated team appointed by govt of india, still people didn't got any info as kadaknath wiki is the first page on google results and no information about the nodel agency or certified farmer is thr. So they fell for whatever is told to them by these scamsters.

If you guy still feel, to oppose my edits you are free to do. But this is the correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soramire (talk • contribs) 23:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Your status as a subject-matter expert is irrelevant, you need to comply with Wikipedia's consensus-based decision making process. If you would like to make accusations of bad faith edits like they even removed references of govt of India scientist..., please provide links to the edits where these changes were made. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You say "you guys are reverting the edits without talking to me," but I see no evidence that you have attempted to talk to other editors, such as on the talk page of the article, after your edits were originally reverted. Based on your contribution history, this appears to be the first time you have engaged in conversation about your edits, save for via edit summaries. WP:EW explicitly states "'my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense," and your claim of being an expert does not excuse edit warring. If I were you, I would take Rosguill's advice above into consideration. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

... and you proceed to do this as I was typing here. You have been blocked 1 week for edit warring. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

... and because of this blatant block evasion, your block is now indefinite. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Long term spamming by multiple related accounts at Aircraft safety card

• Aircraft safety card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting long term protection, and a check to see if all the disruptive accounts are socks or block evasion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• To answer my own question, yes, they're surely block evasion accounts, here to spam. Bonadea blocked at least two of them in 2018. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This editor has been active on that article for one day short of two years (unless there are even earlier edits that I haven't noticed). Unfortunately the editor uses throw-away accounts, some of them used for only one edit, meaning there is not much to be done via actions on the accounts, so I have semi-protected the article. I am always somewhat unhappy about having to protect an article for a long period, but on this article in the last two years there has been, as far as I can see, only one edit by an unconfirmed account other than this editor, and two IP edits, one of which was reverting this disruptive editor. Consequently the amount of collateral damage is likely to be extremely small if any, so semiprotection is not too bad an option. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes on all the above points, and thank you. After reverting the most recent spam links, I made the mistake of following a few to check the sources, and had my desktop essentially disabled, perhaps by malware. Hence the shutting down and returning as this IP. Happy new, etc. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(just a minor point – I remember those socks, and I'm sure I may have reported some of them, but I've never had the blocking tools.) --bonadea contributions talk 22:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, Bonadea. I was conflating your involvement there with the blocks by Ponyo. Thanks for the correction. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklisted - see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § Airline Safety Cards. Guy (help!) 09:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:AHADAGUHILOT

User:AHADAGUHILOT is a single-purpose account. For the last one year, they have been adding Ahada/Guhilot/Rajput-related unsourced content or original research to different articles, along with making other similar disruptive edits – Ahada is a subdivision of Guhilot clan of Rajputs. They have been given multiple final warnings and are also made familiar with the discretionary sanctions, but to no avail. In short, they are WP:NOTHERE. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and imposed an indefinite block for violating sanctions and adding unsourced content despite warnings, but am open to having this be overturned or shortened to a specific duration. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive account continuing after final warning

Sorry, but AIV is locked. So, 98.208.64.39 (talk · contribs), after final warning by Drmies. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• While we're at it, the edit history at Jim Jones merits a long period of protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've posted to AIV in lieu of you, so we have eyes here and there. Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious about who the new IPs are. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC and Mrschimpf. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, all. Still think a lock would be a good idea. Best wishes for the new year. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Another disruptive account, while AIV is locked

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

---

The nonsense edit summaries alone are good for a block, per WP:NOTHERE. 2600:1702:4000:8110:2155:4AFF:F5F9:39E8 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them for a short time, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

@Johnuniq: I think 2600:1702:4000:8110::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is more likely to catch the next IP they use, based on the contribs of the previous two months. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to block 2600:1702:4000:8110::/64

Any opinions on whether the /64 range should be blocked for a significant period (at least a month)? In that range, the following 12 IPs have edited, with the first being 10 November 2019:

• d3d4
• 39e8
• c6a9
• 9e84
• 9ef6
• f728
• e42f
• f08b
• f7c3
• 6c53
• 5e8e
• 766d

I don't have time at the moment for a thorough check, but several that I looked at appeared to be the same user having fun. Some edits could be defended as good faith, but IMHO they look like trolling designed to make editors argue for an hour whether such good-faith edits should be rolled back. If none of the above IPs are constructive, a significant block would be warranted. @AlanM1: any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I sampled each of the above and it is obviously one person mucking about. I blocked the /64 for three months. If anyone notices trouble at the articles they like, feel free to contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Long term edit warring, persistent restoration of content without consensus

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

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

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

Olympics ip editor

47.213.232.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Keeps adding falsified data to tables, claiming that the 2024 Youth Winter Olympics have been awarded to Pyongchang, when they have not. (here and here). ip has an extensive history of being uncooperative and quickly blanking their talk page. Cards84664 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was only trying to help. I used a citation in the 2024 Winter Youth Olympics page and in the Youth Olympic Games page and according to the source I cited in both of these pages, Pyeongchang is the only confirmed candidate so far and the IOC is to award the host city in a week and none of the other cities in contention have expressed further interest. 47.213.232.81 (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits indicate a continuing agenda after multiple blocks

• 173.48.197.65 (talk · contribs) has enjoyed multiple blocks in the past year, returning to continue making WP:POINTY contributions and blaming administrators for their issues [91]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. The edits yesterday were the exact same thing that led to blocks last January and April. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverting my talk page edits and posting personal information about me

There is an angry editor IP that continues to revert my talk page as well as posting personal information such as my comments from Youtube. He alleges that the way I wrote the article Media bias against Bernie Sanders is bias and he thinks I should admit that. This, of course has no relevence to the article. I would like my personal comments from Youtube removed from the talk page as well as removed from my talk page. The editor in question is User:208.75.30.195. Contributions link. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked for outing. El_C 23:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User:The PerfectAngel et al

User:The PerfectAngel is an editor whose mainspace edits, with the exception of two edits to The Challenge: Final Reckoning and one to The Challenge: War of the Worlds 2, are related to RuPaul's Drag Race. While there might be enough to alleviate WP:NOTHERE concerns, user has violated WP:NOTWEBHOST with User:The PerfectAngel/sandbox and User:The PerfectAngel, which are now at WP:MFD... as are five RPDR-esques WP:NOTWEBHOST violations created by another user User:Katsynna, who is a WP:NOTHERE. CU is possibly stale by now, so it's unlikely both accounts can be connected, so I'm going here instead of WP:SPI to see if any of the two accounts can be blocked as nothere. Pinging @Whpq:

Sorry, forgot to sign. ミラP 01:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated all the game playing and whatnot pages. I've seen lots and lots of fake drag race games (as well as fake big brother and others). I don't see anything that strongly connects these two accounts. AS for blocking them for not here, I'll leave that to an admin to weigh in. -- Whpq (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Oversight at Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Tomis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've seen this done far too often. Someone nominates an article for deletion, fails to get it deleted, so waits a month so less people are around to notice and tries to eliminate it with a redirect. Should be a bot to detect how many redirects were created by someone who previously nominated the article for deletion and failed. Dream Focus 14:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment. I am so confused at all the discussion about a stub article for which there are few sources on the web or in books. And, now there's a relisted Afd. Sure, it could have it's own article, but why is it necessary over having a mention in the Brown County, Minnesota article? (This is a rhetorical question. I see all the points why people want to keep the article.) Just a little gobsmacked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

6D Chess?

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

---

Special:Diff/933626381. What could it mean? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

But yeah, probs an LTA. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Undiscussed changes to ~1,500 pages using AWB

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

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

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

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

Off-topic forum

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

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

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

Geoffemerick account

William Zabaleta is a talent manager, one of his former clients Geoff Emerick, a grammy winning recording engineer. An account User:Geoffemerick claimed to be emerick himself in 2017. The account was editing about his own articles. Unfortunately, Emerick died in 2018, but this account keeps on editing articles related to William Zabaleta, his agency and his clients. I suspect a case of shared accounts, UPE, and COI, and a general sense of disgust for the talent agency. Daiyusha (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The use of an account in the name of a person who died recently is also in extremely poor taste. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty despicable. Blocked for UPE, promotional editing and impersonation. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

IP spamming and reverting themself

I don’t know where the best place to post this would be. I’m curious what should/can be done to deal with the behavior of an IP at Apple Look Around. They’ve been adding a bunch of crap/incorrect information to the page and then promptly removing it. If nothing else it gums up the revision history. To the point that it is now the entire first page and half of the second page of edits. It seems overkill to protect a page that is as relatively un-trafficked as it is. redsparta^talk 11:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the article back to prior to the Ipv6 editor starting. Pretty sure it's one person or minimally one company. I think the only other editor was the OP. If it starts up again, either the IP will need to be rangeblocked, or the page semi protected. WP:RPP would likely have been your best venue for this. John from Idegon (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month. Zero^talk 11:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor won't delete company page

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, I find it interesting that the page was originally created by User:Shar1R [92], an editor who's main other contributions seem to have been creating an article on another Israeli company GigaSpaces [93] and one of their products Cloudify [94], and some Israeli band Nikmat HaTraktor [95]. Suffice it to say, this wouldn't be the first time some company had once thought it a good idea to pay for an article to be written about them only to later come to regret it. Although if this was what happened here, I don't really see anything that bad about the article, regardless of whether the info in it is completely up to date with what the company does now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Kavin Mudaliar

Kavin Mudaliar is engaging in edit war, dispute and adding regional research, and already informed. Over to Admin. --AntanO 17:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AntanO, I think this report should be at WP:AN3 rather than here, but from a cursory inspection it does look like Kavin Mudaliar's approach to editing is concerning - they're getting reverted a lot, and there's not much in the way of talk page participation from them. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Amirhosein Izadi

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

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

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

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

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

User:Pmoore2222 COI

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

• He apparently confirms he is Patrick Moore (consultant) with this edit summary and with this edit to his talk page asking to be unblocked back in 2011. Note that back in 2011 when he was unblocked, it was on condition of editing in userspace only. See User_talk:Pmoore2222#COI. He is now in violation of that agreement, albeit it was nearly 9 years ago. @Materialscientist: pinging Materialscientist to the conversation as he was the blocking/unblocking administrator at the time. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SinclairCEO

Maybe this should have gone to AIV, but it's a slightly complicated. I think Special:Contributions/SinclairCEO needs a block. While I have no idea if any of this is true [96], their first edit was this [97] which I strongly suspect is not true. Someone has been trying to add such nonsense for a few months now [98] [99] [100] [101]. The last edit is particularly interesting since it comes from Special:Contributions/Marshall77, who managed to get themselves blocked after adding material to that article (Doug Chapman (American football)) that was rev-deleted. It also highlights another reason for a block, assuming SinclairCEO doesn't know what to do to edit the article, they may go inactive since the article has been semi-protected. But the history with Marshall77 suggests it will be re-activated once protection expires. BTW, while I assume looking at the rev-deleted material will probably be enough to prove whoever is behind this is up to no good, see [102] [103] if there are any doubts. Incidentally, I think we can be sure that the editor is trying to imply some connection with Sinclair Broadcast Group which doesn't exist so it's also a username violation. Yes, I'm sure they'll be back, but with more blocks, it will hopefully be easier to deal with e.g. simply reported to AIV. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed to at least one previous vandal and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor making legal threats

Toddstarnes3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has threatened to sue those editing the article about him previously, and again repeatedly today, see dif. Obviously he is frustrated and I have attempted to explain alternative options dif, but he has not responded to the WP:NLT warning made in November, nor previously responded to COI concerns, and other accounts User:Toddstarnes and User:TPDNYC were blocked by Donald Albury as socks. Melcous (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you think this really is Todd Starnes making the edits? Hard to prove I know. If true, then WP:AUTO would apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

One of Starnes's books is entitled They Popped My Hood and Found Gravy on the Dipstick, so AUTO definitely applies. EEng 13:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether it is Starnes or not. Whoever it is the legal threats are grounds for a block unless and until they are withdrawn unequivocally. This doesn't mean that we should ignore them, but simply that anyone has to choose between being able to edit Wikipedia and making such threats. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The legal threats are unambiguous and the user has continued to make them after being warned. I have duly blocked the account. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Interaction problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:HunterTubeHD85960

@HunterTubeHD85960: has incessantly vandalized the article Rumble (2021 film). Adding unsourced and fabricated castings and reverts whenever anyone fixes it. User clearly doesn’t exist to be helpful. Rusted AutoParts 17:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Trivialist: can attest to this. Rusted AutoParts 17:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: Can you describe the results of your prior discussions with HunterTubeHD regarding this issue? What did they say or do when you brought these issues up with them, expressed your concerns to them, or asked them to explain their editing? --Jayron32 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Dif's would be helpful.-- Deepfriedokra 19:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

here’s the edit history of the article. I suspect the editor is also the IP making the same edits/reversions. This specific edit summary is where I ask Hunter/the ip to source these edits and neither have done so, just continuously reinserting without offering any source. Rusted AutoParts 19:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7 reported by 107.77.227.107

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – This user has been making questionable unexplained changes to Abby Hatcher for months. Because the user's IP changes a lot, a range block may be needed. 107.77.227.107 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. I don't see where the edits in question are vandalism. It mostly looks like innocuous wording changes and a few minor additions. I don't see bad faith anywhere in the two edits made by that IP, or why they even needed to be reverted. Jayron32 18:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has repeatedly state that Sparkles is a Fuzzly, but Sparkles is never referred to as a Fuzzly in the show. The user also keeps describing Grumbles as "monster", but a monster does not have a definite appearance. I fear he/she will just keep adding these without explanation. In fact the user doesn't seem to explain his/her edits. 107.77.227.107 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not vandalism. Vandalism does NOT mean "Something I disagree with". This is a disagreement between you and them over a few wording changes and what those words mean. Have you tried starting a discussion on the article talk pages to explain why you disagree with their changes? What were your prior attempts to reach out to this person? --Jayron32 19:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7/64 may be interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of bad-faith editing there. A few minor tweaks here and there, the kind of stuff thousands of people do every day. Can you post some diffs of actual bad-faith editing in that /64 range? --Jayron32 19:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

InedibleHulk's signature

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

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

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

Signature example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't understand the point in having a sig's day and year link to mainspace; if it is causing issues with useful bots, then I'd agree that it violates WP:SIGAPP and should be changed. 22:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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