Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever

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

Huge amounts of time and effort have been put into trying to help this editor understand the key concepts of notability and reliable sources, by many editors. Yet they have failed to grasp even the basics of these core policies, as evidenced by the recently-created Angela (character). This article is currently at AfD and their comment at the discussion is illuminating, given the problematic sourcing and lack of notability of the subject: [1]. 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: [2] and there is meaningful editing overlap between them). I had avoided naming the previous account here to avoid any possibility of outing them, in an overabundance of caution. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We really do need this attended to as the disruptive edits continue. It's been 2 weeks since this report was logged. Are we short on admin or are none willing to look into this? Robvanvee 05:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Further evidence of the continuing competence issues as these edits are all within the last 48 hours:

• Submitting yet another draft for review (Draft:Jimmy (Tones and I song) where he fails to demonstrate the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources.
• Submitting a draft redirect for review for the second time (Draft:Twang (Mason Ramsey EP)) after being told a few days earlier to follow instructions of such requests at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects.
• Creating redirects from user pages to the same user's talk page as he did here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked Ok, I'll be the admin that does it here. I read this thread, reviewed their edits, and with MANY people telling them what they need to work on, advising them to stop doing what they are doing, and continuing to make the same edits even with all this, I blocked the editor for NOTHERE, and explained this on their talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 9 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)

EdJohnston, more of the same from that IP at Halifax Transit, complete with odd and deceptive edit summaries [3]. I don't know whether another article needs to be locked, or the user slowed down. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've struck out part of my comment in light of a message User:Debdeb18 left on my talk page. Apologies to Debdeb18 for the misunderstanding/false accusation. Ben MacLeod (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've seen this done far too often. Someone nominates an article for deletion, fails to get it deleted, so (example [[4]]; in this case "falsification" means not having the supplementary tables of one source and reporting the same information as relied in another source that directly cites it)waits a month so less people are around to notice and tries to eliminate it with a redirect. Should be a bot to detect how many redirects were created by someone who previously nominated the article for deletion and failed. Dream Focus 14:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about escalation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Amirhosein Izadi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Johnuniq: The block log entry at the user contribution page at fa-wiki [5] contains a Persian word with a link. That word put into Google Translate comes out as "Sabotage". It links to a policy page [6] that is apparently equivalent to our WP:Vandalism, per both putting the top of it into Google Translate and the interwiki link. That page of ours does talk about hoaxes. This is all very consistent with this editor being a hoaxer. I am going to notify Sunfyre on their talk page on fa-wiki to ensure they see this, in case that link did not generate a ping. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• • Thank you Sunfyre. Here is Sunfyre's reply to me at fa-wiki: [7] The translation (with some commonsense tweaks) reads:
  • @Crossroads: Hello, User: Amirhosein Izadi, User: Amir.85, He was making inaccurate information with both accounts, so he was denied access. (en: WP: SNEAKY), For more on this, read this and this. - SunfyreT
  • Each "this" gave me a link. Each discussion can be pasted into Google Translate and read. They are not long, but they establish that this user's content is not trustworthy and most editors were saying his content should be deleted.
  • This all supports that both Amirhosein Izadi, and the account Sunfyre has just mentioned, Amir.85, should be blocked indefinitely. The Amir.85 account does have 2 edits on en-wiki from just the last few months the latter part of 2018, [8] so it should be included.
  • I concur that this user's content is not trustworthy and should be deleted. All of it. Only exception should be if someone else has personally verified it, but that won't be the case generally, as most of the sources are in Persian and it is too hard to check each piece. We already know this user is a liar, and even if there is content that is partly true, it is still totally misleading. I know Koopinator has PRODded some of the hoax articles - I think the rest should also be put through PROD or AfD (possibly AfD to prevent WP:REFUNDing, and perhaps they could be bundled into one nomination as well). Finally, any PRODs that get removed for some reason should be sent to AfD.
  • I think we should also commend Koopinator for insisting this not fall by the wayside and for tracking down and destroying false information. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Crossroads: Thank you for your kind words. While i think a lot of this user's articles are unsalvageable, there are some articles from this user which i think should be partially kept. These are Battle of Rasht, House of Dadvey, Mohammad Qoli Salim Tehrani. Recapture of Isfahan, Siege of Tabriz (1908), and Atabak Park Incident. These articles were translated from good-faith articles from Persian Wikipedia, with the user in question adding fictitious material. I used Google Translate on the original articles to get an idea which claims were fabrications and which were good-faith importations, then i removed the fictitious material and copied the original sources to verify the good content. In Battle of Rasht i also added a small amount of information, since i was familiar with the subject at hand. Koopinator (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Agreed with you here. Basically my thought was that any content original to this user should be presumed false. If some of it was on a page created by him, but was original to good faith users on fa-wiki, then that could be fine. You seem to be doing the right thing with regard to what to save and what to cut.
      • Johnuniq, any further thoughts at this point on the two problem accounts? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Crossroads: By two users, do you mean Amirhosein Izadi (talk · contribs) and Amir.85 (talk · contribs)? The latter has a total of two edits, plus several entries in the edit filter log, and no activity since October 2018. The former has no activity since 27 December 2019. If they were to resume editing and declined to engage with other editors asking about the veracity of their articles I would be willing to block indefinitely until a satisfactory explanation was available. However I do not see proof of a hoax at enwiki and blocking now might not be right. I'm sorry to drag this out but can we leave it another week and see if they have resumed editing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Johnuniq: You see no proof of hoaxing? To repeat myself, consider the article Ice Flower (album) by this user. "Ice Flower has been featured in several prestigious publications, including the Los Angeles Times" - this sentence is sourced to this article, freely available online. The reference looks convincing, it is from the right publication and the title looks related to the subject matter, the only problem is the source's text does not make a single mention of an album called ice flower. It is deliberately intended to deceive the reader into thinking the reference & info is legitimate when it isn't - a textbook definition of a hoax.
            "Subtle hoaxes seriously undermine enwiki. If there is some possibility that a hoaxer will start editing again in the future, then a block prevents that harm." Koopinator (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
            • @Koopinator: Thanks for your work on this—maintaining the integrity of articles is very important. Be assured that if the editor resumes editing but fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, they will be blocked. As a clueless admin, all I can assess is what good editors have concluded and I don't see very many such editors who have concluded that a particular article is a hoax. The biggest clue is the block at fawiki but we don't know much about that. Google finds lots of pages discussing the singer Kourosh Yaghmaie and his song "Gol-e Yakh" which apparently is "Ice Flower", for example [9]. The question remains concerning whether Ice Flower (album) exists. The Los Angeles Times article is definitely about Kourosh Yaghmaie (with a different spelling of the second name). It discusses "Back From The Brink" by Kourosh. According to this the first track is "Gol E Yakh" which, as mentioned, is apparently "Ice Flower". That makes the topic very murky and I would want to see more evidence before blocking the user before they have responded. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
              • @Johnuniq: Well, maybe i chose a poor example since this was an example of a claim that is a hoax and not an article topic that is a hoax. Take Capture of Ardabil and Battle of Turkmen Sahra (of which the latter was deleted in prior AFD): In the former article you have sources with bogus page numbers, Iranica which does not contain info about Ardabil in the 1910s, and a non-existent (as far as Google search will tell me) work from 2008 called "Russia in the Constitutional Revolution". In the latter article, Battle of Turkmen Sahra, none of the sources supported the existence of the battle, and no google books searches indicated that it existed. Claims unrelated to the battle's existence were also unsourced or had sources which had nothing to do with the claim presented. And this user has had plenty of opportunity to prove he's not a hoaxer, i invited him to comment on the possibility of hoaxing back on 20 December in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Turkmen Sahra, but he continued editing unrelated articles. Koopinator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, below there was an indef issued on the basis that indef need not mean infinite, but it was partly to force the user to acknowledge the complaints and address them. [10] Couldn't there be a block of Amirhosein Izadi on that basis? It seems dangerous to leave him free to roam without addressing this. What if he pops up again months or years down the road when or where nobody is scrutinizing? As for not having edited since 27 December, that is the same day Koopinator opened the first report. It's just taken a while to get it handled. It seems pretty clear that Amirhosein Izadi is ignoring us. I say we force him to pay heed.

As for Amir.85, I did have a brain fart in saying that account edited in the last few months. [11] I was subconsciously thinking it was 2019, but it's 2020 and the edits were in the latter part of 2018. Still, seems that if one is blocked, so should the other. Fa-wiki established they are the same person and the two edits from Amir.85 are the same behavioral pattern (about music, "creating" an article from an article on fa-wiki, adding dubious material).

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

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

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

Narky Blert - Honestly I cannot think of a real reason not to ban this person. I realize that he hasn't edited since the 27th, but the misconduct that we are talking about here is too pervasive, sneaky, and dangerous to just ignore solely because he has (possibly temporarily) stopped editing. He has over 1500 edits that will now have to be manually checked over for hoax material, and this will be a painstaking process since his hoaxes are constructed in such a way that you have to have a reasonable amount of patience and subject matter expertise to tell.

I too have only discovered one WP:HOAX in my career, and it was one that had managed to go undetected for years because the hoaxer used fake sources and plausible sounding details. This guy is even more dangerous since his area is a less well understood by the majority of English speaking editors. Michepman (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Michepman: (Non-admin comment) Nor can I. Hoaxing is the worst sort of misbehaviour. Even after having spotted something odd, it takes more time and effort to root it out than to write a similar-sized article - very possibly at least double.

Gud catch! I can't remember (or be bothered to look for) mine, but it had the same tell-tale signs. A C18 French painter, knew all sorts of people; all his paintings were collected after his death by one person, and unluckily lost in a fire in late C19. All sources demonstrating notability were print-only, not in English, and impossible to locate. Plausible circumstantial details and bluelinks and sources, which only began to smell after considerable digging.

There's a paradox here: the more you know about WP, the easier it would be to write a near-undetectable hoax; but the less inclined you would be to do so. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've actually come around to the view it may be best to block them at least until they are willing to engage. I'm generally also very reluctant to advocate a block to force engagement unless there is a reason we absolutely require (as opposed to desire) engagement. But IMO especially with the Farsi wikipedia question mark, combined with what happened with the battle articles, I think it's got to the point we need the questions answered before they edit again. (I did look into the Ice Flower stuff myself after reading Johnuniq's comment and ended up deciding there was too little info, even having looked at Geocities and other such places to be able to conclude whether such an album existed.) And maybe they've abandoned the account, but maybe not. Given the type of concern, I don't think we should just ignore it as stale since I don't think there's any guarantee anyone will still be watching in a few months. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Interaction problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAustin4thApril1980 Reported by Alcibiades979 for Racism

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This warrants a block in my opinion. To "redflag" someone as unable to edit Wikipedia based on their ethnicity is unacceptable. This user has a history of claiming non-democracy sources and people are inherently POV, despotic, and otherwise lesser ([12], [13], [14]). Seems that others think a "final warning" would be better, and I think that should be a minimum response here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Indian films at Cannes

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

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

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

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

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

edit warring by Human Taxonomist over multiple articles

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warned by User:Mutt Lunker[15] on the 31st for unconstructive editing at English people presumably because of this[16] where his edit summary said "no one has replied or continued to sufficient explain their opposition on the talk pages; thus, original edit as per WP will be restored'". At this point on the talk page[17] Mutt and I had disagreed with him but he didn't like what we said, so restored his edit. Some of the same discussion on content was carrying on at the same time at Talk:Origins of baseball with User:Meters also disagreeing with him. I gave him a warning the next day for the same material as he clearly had no consensus. Sirfurboy's warning of the 2nd was removed today with the edit summary "removed unjustified warning from an inflammatory editor" Also today User:Gareth Griffith-Jones warned him about introducing controversial material at Welsh people followed by a warning from User:LindsayH for saying that an editor was being obtuse. Content disputes are not resolved by just ignoring or dismissing the arguments of others, and on these (baseball and the Welsh) he's not had any support for his position. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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

• Where do I begin? I have not done anything to merit a block in my opinion. There was, maybe, some 'edit warring' in terms of the revision of one or two articles by myself and User:Sirfurboy at some of these articles. However, WP:3RR was careful not to be breached by either of us. We are, attempting, to compromise on disputes. I sincerely apologize for mistakenly labeling User:Sirfurboy as 'inflammatory' in unwarranted warnings and revisions on my talk page. My intention was to label his edits there as inflammatory, not him personally. In the case of one or two of these disputes, however, I patiently discussed on relevant talk pages and waited for weeks for replies - which often never came until I went on to make edits again. Only then did they come back to (sort of) discuss again - but only to keep their revision in place and remind me "consensus has to be reached" first, but being quite careful to keep their revision in place. It is not my fault if editors just decide to leave instead of making their case of opposition in an edit conflict. User:Doug Weller and User:Matt Lunker, for example, disappeared from the conversation for weeks. How is an issue going to be resolved if they just leave the conversation? Is the policy to 'win' a conflict to simply revise, discuss a bit, then simply leave if the argument is not going your way? You should also be giving a warning to many other users involved here to 'not revert here until consensus is achieved'. Look at what has occurred on many of those articles listed since this unfair "reporting" of me was made: editors like Sirfurboy have just went on themselves to make edits without 'achieving consensus first'. This is hypocritical, and appears to be an attempt by some who disagree with me to stifle my editing privileges. There is no malicious intent here at article disruption, and I try to be careful not to make personal attacks, despite them being labelled at me at times. But I am not perfect, and some users can take any type of 'offence' as a 'personal attack'. The warning made was duly noted, and there is no other example of a 'personal attack' being made. Human Taxonomist (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You returned to Make this edit [18] weeks after Matt Mutt and I had replied to you without you responding, claiming that "(no one has replied or continued to sufficient explain their opposition on the talk page". That's not what I see when I look. Doug Weller talk 23:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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

• • I am not sure that you have remained under the 3RR rule. 5 minutes after you deleted my warning on your page that I was concerned you were about to breach the 3RR on the Dutch People page, you reverted me again, here: [[19]]. I said I was not willing to make a complaint about that because I thought you are inexperienced, and with good intent. I asked you to self revert but you did not. However I may have got the count wrong. That was your third revert on that page and I think 3RR actually says you must make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours to breach it. However you also reverted two of my edits on the talk page (the second one after I had objected). So maybe that was a breach of the 3RR, and maybe it wasn't. I don't think it is very careful, however, to make another revert 5 minutes after being warned you are about to breach the 3RR rule. Also I would point out that reversion is kind of a big deal. In 15 years in Wikipedia, you have reverted more of my edits than I have ever had reverted before -in total. You have been directed to talk, but you write something in the talk section and then immediately revert. Now in my attempts to keep to WP:BRD, I have reverted some of your edits too, and as User: Snowded has said, that was unwise of me. However, at no time have I been reverting deliberately until I was just short of the 3RR rule as though that is a magic number. A block can be imposed for any edit warring, and edit warring has definitely been your style.

• WP:3RR says it is violated if more than 3 are made in a 24 hour period. I did not do that in the articles you are referring to. Your claims of innocence in edit warring are false. You have been making just as many reverts of my edits, including routinely before consensus has been reached, and based on a cursory overview of your edit history, you have also done this before. You indeed have also been careful to revert without breaching 3RR, like here [20] (reverting while also making new changes is still covered under 3RR), so that would appear to be a lie. Human Taxonomist (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was only involved in the did English people invent baseball question on that article's talk page and on History of baseball, but I would support an edit warring block on that behaviour alone. The user has made the claim that the English invented baseball five times now despite there clearly being no consensus that the material should be included. Note the the fifth time was after I had agreed with the removal and posted to the user on talk:English people [21] and talk:Origins_of_baseball [22]. Human Taxonomist was clearly aware of my objections since he or she replied to both threads [23] [24] before making the final revert [25]. I would have thought that a warning would be sufficient since Human Taxonomist is a new editor, but even after ending up at ANI over this he or she is still attempting to argue the case [26]. Unless the user clearly states an understanding of and agreement to follow the Wikipedia policies on Consensus, Dispute resolution, and Edit warring (WP:CONS WP:DISPUTE and WP:EDITWAR) I think a block (or the 1RR restriction) are necessary. Meters (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

It's getting difficult to WP:AGF here. I was not part of the earlier discussion, so I am certainly not "another example of a user in that dispute who thinks they can just win the argument by leaving the discussion entirely, and then only return when the revision they oppose is made again". That's a completely baseless accusation. A full four weeks after user:Matt Lunker and user:Doug Weller posted about the issue on Talk:English people you restarted the discussion there with [27] Mutt Lunker replied to you a few hours later, again disagreeing with your analysis, and suggested keeping restarting in the discussion on Talk:Origins of baseball [28]. Instead you dismissed the discussion on the other talk page [29] "In any case, it is the article here where the edit conflict is" and stated that "If no one replies or continues to explain why they oppose my edits, then as per WP I can return my original edit" [30] Nice trick that..reopen a discussion on one page four weeks after the fact, and one in which you had never participated, and claim that since no-one was responding on a different page thread, which you dismissed, you were justified in reverting again. You can't have it both ways. I saw that and responded mere minutes later to agree with the removal and to point out that you did not have consensus [31]. You restored it while I was making my I response, but it is not true that you had "only recently reverted a few days ago at that article because no one had replied to my discussion for weeks" since Matt Lunker had responded. By the time you reverted the final time you had responded to my posts, so you clearly knew that there was an additional editor contesting your edit. You either do not understand the policies I pointed out, or you refuse to accept them. Your response has only confirmed to me that a block is needed. Meters (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice try, but I posted a major reply at Talk:Origins of baseball on December 4th, as can be seen here [32]. No one replied again until December 31st, and only after I started up discussion again and made edits at English people and Talk:English people on December 30th. I waited patiently, like I said previously, for nearly 4 weeks. Other editors, including yourself, only became involved again when I made changes to English people and the talk page there. The original course of action was to discuss the issue at Talk:Origins of baseball, but no one was responding there for weeks. Leaving a discussion like that is not a consensus or conflict resolution. The fact you all only became involved again once I made edits at English people is strong evidence you, Doug Weller and especially Matt Lunker were stonewalling, as is your complete disregard to come to a compromise. That is not acceptable, and neither is this new attempt to stifle discussion by a ridiculous move to suppress my editing privileges. You, Doug Weller and Matt Lunker were clearly active on Wikipedia throughout December, so why not reply to my discussion? Why all of a sudden take the time to edit only when I restored my preferred revision? It's not going to work, and nothing here merits a block. As for WP:AGF, I'm pretty sure stonewalling behaviour is not acting in good faith. Human Taxonomist (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankly, there is no need for any restriction. I am being unfairly targeted. Since I last commented here, User:Sirfurboy has reverted - again - without reaching a consensus with me first at some articles we disagree on (see [33] [34]). Unilateral editing and reverting without consensus is apparently ok for him (or her), but not the rest of us. This person is in no position to comment here, and is now trolling all my edits. Someone should be giving this user the same warnings. In any case, whatever edit disputes between us, I think we can resolve. User:Mutt Lunker is guilty of stonewalling until he keeps the version of the article he wants, so his opinion is also irrelevant here. I've heeded User:Doug Weller's advice and decided to drop what was happening at English people. If you want to place a temporary WP:1RR on me for a specified time frame, then fine, but this got really out of hand, for no reason, mostly because of editors trying to silence a dissenting viewpoint. Cheers, Human Taxonomist (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

WE had already agreed to take the discussion to Talk:Origins of baseball as per [35]. I made a major reply there on December 4th [36], and again, no one replied for nearly a month, despite you all being active on here over that time period. Human Taxonomist (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm in the middle of a LONG week, but after looking through this briefly I say AE-block his ass and wait for that to fail so we can indef the account. And best protect the article pages too since this comes under not one but two different AE sub headings: Eastern Europe and German War Effort. Food for thought.

@TomStar81: I have no idea how to solve this dispute, but I think you forgot to sign.--Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a TBAN for both users. I am not sure both are being exactly honest and are both POV pushers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What concrete did you do for accuracy of Statuta Valachorum article? I quote: "no, you have to get consensus for these changes. You do not get to make a case and then act as if you have won the debate." You supported Sadko although you do not know history of that region of Croatia at all. You didn't help with anything and now you would ban and me? POV pusher? You did not see that this was largely a copied article from Serbian Wikipedia? Is it then a neutral article? But these are laws for the Vlachs, Croats are also Vlachs and where they are in the article? Do you know history of Croatia? Do you know that Croats in Dalmatia are Vlach in documents, we're not Serbs because of that or maybe we are? You support that article and Sadko, and my edit where I placed Vlachs with the Serbs consider POV pushing? What if I put information about the Croats who were under the Vlach name at the time? Whether and this is POV pushing? From where Serbs in an article that talks about the Vlachs? Then the Croats etc are actually of Serbian origin? Promotion of this claim is called how? Then we will also change the article about Vlachs from Wikipedia, there are not mentioned any Serbs there.(The Orthodox Vlachs spread further northward along the Carpathians to Poland, Slovakia, and Moravia and were granted autonomy under Ius Vlachonicum (Walachian law), there is no mention of Serbs in that law. If someone does not know the Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian etc history this is not a reason for all those who know that history a little better consider POV pushers. And that is why we need to work together in good faith to keep the articles accurate as possible. And normally without insulting anyone that is personal Nazi or fascist, that deserves the harshest punishment. Mikola22 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am talking not just about one article. I recall your attempt to use the dodgy source discussed at length above, and how you at first claims you were using historical documents rather, and ironically as I pointed out a third party source interpreting them. In fact if I recall it was only after some effort you seemed to accept this [[37]]. It maybe just bad use of English, but you seem to often say things that seem to not gel with what you mean. You (for example) seem to claim you have personal access to the Vatican archives, do you? Its clear you mean "his book about the Vatican Archives, but you said "I used information from his book from the Vatican Archives". In a less contentious area this might not be an issue, bit in a highly controversial topic not being able to make yourself clearly understood causes confusion and conflict. Also you say you will now not use Krunoslav Draganovic, but you also )in effect) try to defend his use by "Croatian Catholic Church", and strongly imply that many Croatian sources use him (do the ones you want to use?). It all adds to a sense you are more interested in pushing a Croatian nationalist POV. You are (in effect) pretty much a wp:sap. By the way I have called for you both to be TBAN'd this is not some one sided attempt to silence some "truth about the Vlachs", its an attempt to stop the pair of you ruining it for everyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia at first what does that have to do with this edit or in the last month, or with the fact that Sadko insults me for being a Nazi? You (for example) seem to claim you have personal access to the Vatican archives, do you? I used this information from the book (1991), about these Catholics Bjelopavlići a few days ago I found it in the book of Malcolm Noel "Kosovo: A Short History". I can't find the whole book anywhere, when I find it I'll edit Bjelopavlići artice. Where the conflict is, the Bjelopavlići are referred as Catholics is that a problem for you and Sadko? Bjelopavlići are allegedly Serbs, whether that may be a problem? Do you edit article in good faith or what is it about? It is forbidden to mentione Catholics? I'm not defending anyone, I live in Croatia and I have not researched the work of Krunoslav Draganovic. I know that he is a patriot of the Croatian Catholic Church, I only knew that about him. And I thought it was RS. I don't know how you can't figure it out. "Croatian nationalist POV" maybe it's from your viewing angle because you don't know Croatian history. If you knew the history of Croatia then you would not defend Sadko, you probably would defended accuracy of information in Wikipedia articles and the principle of good faith. Why you don't change the "Statuta Valachorum" article for the better. Whether it is the law of the Serbs or Vlachs? Have you read the article? If you don't know Croatian history then ask me. Therefore, you have no good faith in this case. This is not right.Mikola22 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details

Personal attacks To MarioGom: Since you asked my opinion. I think that you might be a TERF or TERF adjacent, oops didn't mean to be accusatory afterall we are supposed to AGF,but you asked for opinions. [38] (mentioned above; this shows that Oldperson knows it is against AGF) The above is an unsubstantiated ad hominem, by an editor who does not have ability or credibility to make such statements. (Was not an ad hominem, as can be seen.) [39] Doubles down: My comment was directed to Crossroads and not Newimpartial. [40] "[Haukurth]'s back to back edits here and here appear to be one sided, TERF protective." [41] tq template not working for this one I really want to be respectful of editors, I really do, but frankly your response is obfuscatory, and that is playing nice. Havine a "balanced" quote in a reference just doesn't cut it. Those who find this article in a search and read it, very seldom if ever bother to click on the citations and when they do they don't read them, so all that J.Q. Public gets is one side of the argument. I also noticed that you used WE in your response. This then is a coordinated effort between you, Haukurth and Crossroads. I find that interesting. [42] Personal bias and agenda are not legitimate justifications for the reversion or edit, remember WP:NPOV, not so long as you are an editor [43] your comment above is simply your own opinion, which quite apparently is strongly anti trans POV....Oh did I accuse you of not AGF or having an ulterior motive. I certainly did, maybe it is bad form, and Wikipedians aren't suppose to resort to such, however considering your very firm, often stated critical position and your self admitted interest in human sexuality. Stating that you appear to be transphobic is not an unjust or unwarranted accusation, it arises from your hundreds or is it thousands of edits. [44] (Pyxis Solitary quoted this one briefly above; it's worth being quoted more fully.) Casting aspersions Articles like this generally attact editors who have an interest in human sexuality, advocates and opponents. The opponents obviously outnumber the advocates... [45] Incompetence In response to DIYeditor evaluating a source: Who are you to judge the quality? [46] This brief discussion, with quotes like Who do you think you are talking to anyway? and your choice of quotes is sensationalism, prurient and inappropriate for the general public, especially the young folk who might access the page. [47] Even though the article already had academic sources: Peer reviewed academic articles are not appropriate, nor will they be found....The only sources that make sense or those found in the common realm, which includes (at this point) Youtube and self published sources. [48] Editing a quote from a source: [49] Editing another's comment: [50] Misusing talk page as forum: [51][52][53]

DIYeditor described their behavior well as trigger-happy accusations of POV. [54] And so did Aircorn when he said they treat this place more like a reddit forum than an encyclopaedia. [55] As Pyxis Solitary noted, Mathglot made Oldperson aware of the discretionary sanctions; she also noted that Oldperson was warned about their problem behaviors by Starship.paint, GPRamirez5, Jayjg, and others. I've wondered before if this editor is as bad in their other editing areas; based on the fact that they have received warnings from editors that I have not interacted with and that likely came from these areas, I strongly suspect that this is so.

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

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

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

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

---

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

So let me get this straight: Oldperson engages in personal attacks and incompetent behavior for months on end, is warned repeatedly, continues the same behaviors despite admittedly knowing the rules, and all they get is a slap on the wrist, and is rewarded by having the version which they edit-warred for [56] locked in for 2 weeks? -Crossroads- (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have only ever encountered Oldperson in relation to the TERF article so have no comments on their ability at other articles. Ignoring the POV and personal attacks (which by themselves should be enough for at least a topic ban) they clearly lack the competency to edit this area or are simply WP:NOT HERE. I won't add much to the diffs above, but just point to a conversation started by them at my talk page after I reverted their change to another editors talk page comment (User talk:Aircorn/Archive 11#You speak nonsense). I basically suggested an ignore them approach unless they started fooling around in article space. Since there last three edits at TERF have been a slow burn edit war [57][58][59] which has now lead to it being locked for 2 weeks they have gone beyond being an annoying talk page presence to actually harming the encyclopaedia. AIRcorn (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

• I was quite frustrated with Oldperson when I first encountered them, less for POV reasons than CIR (despite being warned about it: constant FORUMing, clobbering others edits, not using preview, not indenting properly). This last edit that has been locked in at TERF is another CIR example. For no reason it clobbers potentially useful edits by other editors to go back to Oldperson's preferred version. Oldperson does not even care if the edits they are obliterating are by other ostensible trans-allies (in Oldperson's schema). As to calling other editors anti-trans there is some subjectivity to this so we can give Oldperson some degree of leeway to point out the issue, but many of these comments are bordering on the same FORUM problem they have been warned about many times, and are markedly unCIVIL. I will be interested to see if Oldperson is able to reply here to all these issues. As always, I think if someone can explain their missteps and assure ANI it won't happen anymore, a final chance is in order. I do feel they've already been strongly cautioned by Drmies. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• My primary concern with this user is their almost near constant encroachment into FORUM territory. I’ve seen it on at least a dozen pages. Note that this isn’t restricted to gender-related issues. They’re arguably just as active on AmPol pages, especially those related to Trump. It’s not that they don’t *occasionally* have decent points, or the rare decent edit, it’s the “heat to light” ratio. There are definite civility and CIR issues with this user, and a ton of people have tried to help, to little avail. Honestly... There doesn’t seem to be a capacity for collegial editing right now. That’s not to say that they couldn’t improve, but aside from their grandstanding and straddling the line of personal attacks, their inability to successfully ping most users after almost a year (as just one example) isn’t encouraging as to their competence. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Note that when Oldperson attacked me ([60]), it was our first interaction as far as I can tell, and it was in response to a completely civil proposal I made in an article talk page. I finished my proposal with the sentence What do you think? as a friendly way to ask other editors for feedback. Oldperson appeared out of the blue to attack me, explicitly trying to use AGF as a shield and implying that because I asked for opinions he was entitled to attack me. I think this is one of the most blatant personal attacks I've received both on any wiki. --MarioGom (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Oldperson has replied on their user talk page: [61] It's just more paranoia, personal attacks, and refusal to change. Combining that with the latest competency issues detailed above, I trust the admins know what needs to be done. Pinging Drmies, El_C, (TonyBallioni already pinged). -Crossroads- (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

X. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

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

I support this move. I didn't say anything earlier but although I strongly disagree with Pyxis Solitary's and probably Crossroads's views, IMO calling editors TERFs is a step too far into the personal attack line unless it's something they use to describe themselves. Perhaps saying someone hasis advocating anti transphobic views is justifiable in some cases, but there's no need to use terms like TERF. Note that I supported using the term in articles without attribution if the sources support it (which the community didn't agree with), so it's not like I have some hatred of the term. I haven't looked at the other stuff but IMO it's enough to justify an indef if OldPerson has given no indication they will stop. (As some may know, I'm a strong proponent of indef even for regulars when we require some behavioural change and the editor has shown a strong resistance to such a change, under the indef isn't infinite, or even potentially very long.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2020 I modified my post after the replies below due to a serious error. See below for further explanation. I also added a timestamp which wasn't present due to a signing error on my part. 05:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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

@Nil Einne: "although I strongly disagree with Pyxis Solitary's and probably Crossroads's views". What a clever way to say you believe Oldperson's accusations.
Before you get knee deep into buying what an off the rails person says about another editor, you need to have followed the bouncing ball from Day One. And in this case, you clearly have not bothered to read the comments posted in talk pages by editors whose views you "probably" disagree with. The irony of Oldperson and others like him/her, is that while they rail against those they perceive to be "anti-trans", they refuse to look in the mirror and see how they can be regarded as "pro-activism". Enjoying the finger before wagging it. Whatever my personal opinions may be, whatever company I keep, whatever faith I follow -- and all the other many elements that make the person -- I edit any article I am interested in as long as there is RS to support my edits, and I don't care if I do or don't like what the RS has to say, if it's legitimate it goes in. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 01:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: My comments about you have nothing to do with what what Oldperson has said. Although I rarely edit the area, I've seen enough of what you've said and done here on wikipedia by myself to decide that I extremely strongly disagree with your views, in fact I find them offensive. (And I say this as someone who strongly questions whether gender really exists as anything other than a social construct.) I came to this conclusion long before I read anything Oldperson had said. And it was in fact precisely because I've read what you posted that I came to this conclusion. Frankly I didn't even know that Oldperson was active in the area. I've seen them editing somewhere before but it was something else (I think politics).

Incidentally, I question your claim that you always edit in support of the sources, again from what I've seen with my own eyes but won't discuss this further since I do not have diffs to support my claims. I'm not going to bother to look for them since I do not believe they rise to the level that justifies action against you.

As for Crossroads, my comment on them were much more to do with the fact that they seemed to be in solidarity with you than anything Oldperson had said. If I'm mistaken I apologise to them. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Crossroads since I don't have good reasoning but I felt it would better make my point.

Normally it wouldn't matter and I would never bring it up, hence why I've never mentioned it in the months since I came to the conclusion. You are of course welcome to your views, just as I am welcome to mind, including that I find your views offensive. We are required to edit neutrally and in collegial fashion here on wikipedia no matter how strongly may disagree with the other person. The only reason I brought it up was to emphasise that support for the indef wasn't something just those opposed to Oldperson's views felt, but those who may in part agree with Oldperson. Oldperson seems to be displaying a 'persecution complex' so I felt it helpful to emphasise to them, you're in the serious wrong here. Who knows, maybe even some third party readers of these thread may feel this was just opponents getting their way with someone they disagree with.

@Crossroads: as I said in reply to Pyxis Solitary, I apologise if I am mistaken about your views. As for the rest, I stand by my claims I still stand by what I intended to say which as explained below, isn't what I actually said and I apologise for that. In some instances it's perfectly acceptable to say that someone is using wikipedia to advocate anti-semitic viewpoints or racist viewpoints or homophobic viewpoints or islamophobic viewpoints or whatever else, to be able to discuss the problem with appropriate diffs etc. Precisely whether it is appropriate in this instance I make no comment since I only very briefly glance at the evidence. But the point remains, that while those may be appropriate in some instances, I can't imagine there is ever any reason to call a fellow editor a TERF. Therefore the fact that the editor refuses to stop doing so, is from my POV, sufficient justification for an indef block.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I just realised I made a serious mistake in my original post and apologise. I meant to say it's acceptable to say someone is advocating anti-trans views in some cases, rather than it's acceptable to say someone has anti-trans views in some cases. I have corrected this and again apologise for any hurt or confusion caused by my original incorrect statement. Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I make no comment about this dispute more broadly (too high-conflict an area for me) but saying that you "can't imagine there is ever any reason" to call someone a label widely and ordinarily used for people who hold anti-trans views is deeply troubling to me. There may well often be reasons to hold back in the interests of not escalating conflict and I probably wouldn't do it on Wikipedia, but to suggest that someone be indefinitely blocked for doing is such an extreme view that you'd be politely asked to leave many real-world spaces for doing so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Although I rarely edit the area, I've seen enough of what you've said and done here on wikipedia by myself to decide that I extremely strongly disagree with your views, in fact I find them offensive."
I invite anyone, editor and reader, to search my editing history in these articles and their talk pages.
"I do not have diffs to support my claims. I'm not going to bother to look for them since I do not believe they rise to the level that justifies action against you."
You want to accuse without diffs to support your allegations? And whatever you claim I've said don't "rise to the level that justifies action against you"? You've made a libelous statement about me and absolutely violated WP:PA. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You've made a libelous statement about me

Might want to rephrase that statement, as it could be construed as a legal threat. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user inserting fake names to BLP articles

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

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

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

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

I would note that although the editor's changes are inappropriate due to the lack of sources, I don't think they're making stuff up. For example, in the Simon Law case, our article currently says sometimes credited as Simon A. Law and a quick search finds non RS stuff like [62]. "Nellee" sounds a lot like a stage name to me and a quick search finds non RS or other unsuitable sources like [63] and a company record. Bernard Sumner I found [64]. Rolleygiacalone could have added to IMDb but more likely they got it from IMDb. (The other name also appeared on IMDb for Nellee.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

possible violation of editing restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not just 14 - there are thousands of them (I counted around 9,000 in the last 24 hours alone). Very odd behaviour indeed. (Incidentally, {{commonscat}} -> {{Commons category}} is indeed an AWB builtin, so it doesn't violate the sanction). Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) This does appear to be a violation of the sanctions, although I'm more concerned that Rich's recent edits (within the past 24 hours [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]) do nothing but inflate his edit count—just changing "residing" to "living" without making any other substantive changes to those pages does not improve the encyclopedia. That sort of tendentious editing is in itself disruptive, in that by looking at his recent contributions, he's doing this approximately 10 times per minute. Thus I think just nitpicking if Rich violated his restrictions or not de-emphasizes the real issue and ignores what is a symptom of a bigger problem. So if we're going to nitpick whether Rich violated his restrictions of not, then I don't see how Rich editing at monstrously fast speeds (flooding recent changes and watchlists whilst making no improvements to the encyclopedia) should be anything short of the main focus of this discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that the AWB change of replacing "commonscat" with "commons category", a rather pointless change already made on thousands of pages and probably scheduled for thousands more (commonscat is, after all these changes, still used on more than 100,000 pages, without causing any issues or problems), was added by Rich Farmbrough himself to the AWB page in September 2019 [70]. This is basically an editor deciding themselves which edits don't violate their editing restriction by putting it in the AWB list first, and then making the edits. Either remove the restriction or reverse his mostly unnecessary AWB list additions and prohibit him from editing that page as well. It should be trimmed back down to only list incorrect template redirects (typos or confusing, unclear names). "Before adding a rule here you must ensure that there is consensus in favour of the template renaming.", which doesn't seem to exist for most or all of the additions made by Rich Farmbrough on that page over the last year95% of these changes. Fram (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A talk page stalker kindly replied 11 minutes later. I am sorry I didn't add a personal note confirming that they were correct, I will try to do better in future. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC).

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

• (Non-administrator comment) Support removal of AWB access per above. I also agree with Justlettersandnumbers that Rich should be restricted from making rapid-fire bot-like edits of any kind (except when reverting vandalism). And seeing as Rich continued to defend his actions until there was support for the removal of AWB access, it wouldn't have mattered anyway if Beelebrox had brought this to Rich's talk page instead of here, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. That being said, Rich's comments have strengthened Beeblebrox's case —not worsened it— that starting this thread was absolutely necessary. I think Beeblebrox did the right thing by bringing this to the wider community instead of trying to deal with it himself, given what's been showing to be ongoing behavior. My suggestion to Rich is that he concentrates more on other areas of the project —like fighting vandalism, contributing content, fixing typos, etc— that way he can still make use of his time here without his past problems resurfacing. Rich can always have his AWB access reinstated if he's able to show that he's learned from the behavior that got it taken away to begin with—that is after he's focused on other areas of the project for so long.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Question for Rich Farmbrough – Though I commented above, I wanted to do a little more research before !voting on the #Formal proposal below. This is what I found looking more closely at RF's contribs:
  1. Round 1: 102 edits in 5 hours (Jan 2 15:03 – Jan 2 20:11) = 20 edits per hour = 1 edit every 3 minutes. [71]
  2. Round 2: 190 edits in 38 minutes (Jan 3 21:20 – Jan 3 21:58) = 5 edits per minute = 1 edit every 12 seconds [72]
  3. Round 3: 4,500 edits in 5 hours (Jan 4 21:51 [73] – Jan 5 02:54 [74]) (9 pages of contribs @ 500/page) = 900 edits per hour = 15 edits per minute = 1 edit every 4 seconds. Peaks at 20 edits/min or 1 edit every 3 seconds.
  4. Round 4: 3,750 edits in 8 hours (Jan 5 11:41 [75] – Jan 5 19:55 [76]) (7.5 pages of contribs @ 500/page) = 468.75 edits per hour = 7.8 edits per minute = 1 edit every 7.7 seconds
  • Each of these 8,500 or so edits changes "residing" to "living", plus a few minor corrections here and there. All of them have the edit summary "clean up". None of them have an WP:AWB tag, nor a WP:JWB link in the edit summary. @Rich Farmbrough: how did you make these edits? What tool or script did you use? – Levivich 19:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Formal proposal

Based on how this discussion has progressed I propose the following:

Rich Farmbrough is not permitted to make any mass changes to articles, broadly construed, and regardless of editing method, cosmetic or not, without a demonstrable consensus from the community that he is explicitly permitted to do so. Further, he is entirely prohibited from using Auto Wiki Browser or directly making any edits to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects or any other page related to the governance and use of automated or semi-automated tools. Any such changes desired must be proposed on the appropriate talk page, and may only be enacted by other parties. This sanction does not replace or nullify other pre-existing sanctions on this user, and may be appealed no sooner than one year from the date it was approved by the community.

This should curtail this issue and eliminate the sort of gaming/end running that has apparently been going on with the previous overly-wordy, overly specific sanction. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Basically this is a ban from editing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC).

• (Non-administrator comment) Support per the reasoning I've already given here and here. Since it's gone the direction of a formal proposal, it's better to have all the ducks in a row and cover all the bases than for the reverse to happen—a repeat. Seeing as this proposal is just a formality to what's already been the outcome of this discussion, a formal proposal will have more teeth than anyone (whether they're going around looking for this issue or not) starting an infinite amount of ANI threads about this same exact issue—and I've noticed this happens all the time on AN/ANI these wiki days. I feel as if we as a community shouldn't have to keep discussing the same exact issue dozens of times before we finally decide to do something about it.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Why {{noping|Rich Farmbough}}? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC).
  

Because you were already informed of the discussion and are clearly following very closely. Personally, I don't like it when people keep pinging me in discusisons I'm already active in. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I am not following it closely, and I have probably been a little clumsy with my responses, because I don't have time to devote to these shenanigans during the week, but one ping when you stick the knife in and another when you twist it would seem appropriate? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

The martyr complex isn't doing you any favors Rich. The proposed language is meant to be copied to WP:RESTRICT if and when it gains consensus, so it should contain a link to your username. There was no reason to ping you and no nefarious reason for not doing so. Nobody is trying to murder you or drive you to hang yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I just happened across this today, relating to an issue an open-source author had with Pay-pal. I think perhaps if you read it you will understand that that is pretty much how I feel.

Certainly there are people who would like nothing better than to end my wiki-life, if you had watched the wiki closely you would know that there has been significant real life risk too. But saying someone is sticking the knife in, is not meant to be understood in a literal way, which you must surely know.

You posted a screed here which accuses me of many things. Rather than addressing them, you spin out more accusations, that "I would respond like that" - am I not allowed to point out that your leading position is, on it's face wrong? that I have a "martyr complex", that I am guilty of IDHT, that I am going on a jihad. It doesn't matter how many accusations you add, they do not address the issue, moreover they make this discussion more poisonous, because people will assume that you are correct, and will ignore the mollifying constructs, like "basically decent" and net positive".

I still would like you to identify what the actual problem is - i.e. what made you unhappy, and approach me about that. It seems to have been a watchlist concern.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC).

• Support, though if we could line up the same ducks with rather fewer words that would be good :). What I am only just beginning to understand is that this is already a repeat, or rather just one in a long series of repeats; Rich Farmbrough has an extensive block history including a one-year site-ban, and almost all of those blocks are apparently for misuse of automated editing. It also appears that he's been using AWB without authorisation (no idea how that is possible, but we definitely need to make sure that it can't ever happen again), and editing the AWB documentation. This is the minimum remedy in the circumstances. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The one year site ban was for correcting quotation marks in a draft article. You couldn't make this stuff up. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC).
    
• Oppose naturally. It's a shame that I can't ping the 379 people who left me thanks in 2019, mostly for clean-up work. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC).
  
• Support, although it may need to be tweaked or expanded to simply disallow all edits with the appearance of being script-made or -assisted. His edits are officially not done by AWB, but by presumably some personal copy / version of it, so disallowing the use of AWB won't make much of a difference. Basically, this looks way too much like a return to the habits that caused the initial discussions and sanctions. Looking at some of his latest edits, you get a series of 9 edits to PANTA, which make the usual minor improvements, including dubious ones like changing "Santa Clara, California, United States" to " Santa Clara, California, United States", adds links to disambiguation pages like HP and SGI, and leave the main problems with the page in place (like the claim that "PANTA Systems is the only data warehouse appliance vendor to validate their claims of high perform, high availability and low cost with an externally verified world record.", where they changed the bare url to a ref, but didn't notice that that ref actually contradicts the claim). Worse is what happened in the 4 edits to European Datawarehouse, which make again some minor improvements, but at the same time introduces unexplainable errors like changing "Dutch Securitisation Association" to "Dutch SecuritisationAssociation", "Instituto de Crédito Oficial" to "Instituto de CréditoOficial", "Moody's Group Cyprus Limited" to "Moody's Group CyprusLimited", and "Société Générale S.A." to "Société GénéraleS.A.". If, after four edits, you add about as much errors as you have removed, then you shouldn't have bothered making these edits in the first place. Fram (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Lets just look at the PANTA article, Apart from the fact the WP:NOT COMPULSORY, your reading of the reference is way off. It is obvious that the withdrawal was dated 2012, way after PANTA folded. That is the reason I didn't remove this as puff straight away. There is a huge document attached which I skimmed, and decided was not something I was going to read in detail. However because you are being your usual self, which I recall you have promised not to be, I spent 60 seconds with the archive to add a link to the page as it was nearer the time the reference was added, and another 60 seconds with Google to establish the basis of the claim, which, as far as a world record goes, seems valid. The sentence is still puff, and I'm sure that someone will fix that soon. They will not be able to do it if their time is taken up with oppositional Wikipedians.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC).

• Support - There is other work that this fine editor can do apart from constantly making these rapid-fire, and often pretty baffling, changes to articles. The changes could still be made to articles individually, but only in cases of clear consensus on the talk page.Eliteplus (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Eliteplus, in the present case a much better way to gain consensus would be with a discussion at WP:WikiProject Cities. Otherwise we would have to have 20,000 discussions. Also if you are ever baffled by one of my edits, my talk page and my email are available. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC).
    

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

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

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

I reported a logged-in editor to AIV for making (apparently random) changes to dates in biographies, and it was rejected as not being obvious vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:ThosLop

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

Another editor recently started a thread here about this problematic editor. That thread was archived without action to here. The crux of the issue is that the editor is adding fire department/district websites to the external links section of various articles. Examples; [77],[78]. More than a hundred of these edits have been reverted per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#External_links, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:LINKFARM. The editor has been warned about these edits starting in August of last year (see User_talk:ThosLop#August_2019). Despite multiple attempts at contact by several different editors on this editor's talk page, despite several warnings regarding the issue, despite the prior WP:AN/I thread, despite a final warning to his talk page here, this editor is continuing as before; [79]. To date, the editor has made 381 edits; all to mainspace. The editor has never once made a talk page edit. The editor is either unwilling to discuss the issue, or is completely oblivious to the hundreds of revert messages they have received and the many talk page notices that have appeared on their talk page. Regardless of why they are acting in this manner, their edits are disruptive and they are refusing to discuss the issue in any respect. I am asking for them to be blocked to prevent the continued disruption. The editor has been notified of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

@NinjaRobotPirate: They appear to either have ignored or not understood your message. [80] Yosemiter (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

At this point, this editor has been warned multiple times, including a final warning here, had a WP:AN/I thread started about them prior to this one located here which they failed to respond to, and were given effectively another final warning by NinjaRobotPirate here. To date, the editor has never edited a talk page, and has ignored every warning, every thread, every revert against their edits. They continue to add inappropriate external links. It's time to block. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked ThosLop pending some kind of effort to communicate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number 57 has a partisan viewpoint in the discussion at issue and is not a neutral ANI respondent: "Personally I think MOS:JOBTITLES should be removed from the MOS ... per Coffeandcrumbs and TDW." [81]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the MOS:JOBTITLES RfC opened in November 2019

"not supported by reliable sources either in practical usage (in any sense) or in authoritative style guide usage" [82] (Just not true, as has been shown in WP:RM after RM in specific cases, while previous MoS discussions on the generalities have cited said style guides in volume and detail. As noted below, a single case of one person not understanding the guideline who proposed a bad move which didn't succeed seems to be what set TDW off, on a tiresome slow-motion tirade against the guidelines and against editors who follow it or had anything to do with it.) From same post: "This is has gotten to the point where you've got two or three Wikipedians attempting to make Wikipedia use an entirely interpretation [sic] of English grammar as distinct from the entire rest of the language" (That's the same kind of "evidence I don't like doesn't exist" WP:IDHT act, combined with a WP:CABAL conspiracy theory; MoS is probably the most-watchlisted guideline on the system, and has had thousands of editors). From same post: "These changes are ungrammatical", and "interpretation of English grammar", earlier. (This has nothing to do with grammar at all, but with style conventions which vary by publisher. Mislabeling style matters as "grammar" issues (i.e., not choices to make but rules to obey or you'll be considered wrong and stupid) is the hallmark of uninformed language prescriptivism and the argument to ridicule fallacy. By contrast, "this are some example grammars error of". If you violate a language's grammar, you really are making an error. If you don't apply entirely optional capitalization the way TDW prefers, that's not an error, it's simply a decision.) From same post: "slipped in because a very small number of editors (I count three on this talk page) have changed a guideline on their own whim with outcomes that are increasingly ludicrous" (so, multiple concluded RfCs don't exist, it's really a three-person Cabal of Doom. And WP consensus is "increasingly ludicrous"; I guess all other editors singly and together are just idiots compared to TDW's godlike wisdom. NB: TDW didn't bother to actually look much into the history of the editing of that section and the discussions behind it (and after it); Coolcaesar did much later (here; DPW didn't see it until 6 January [83]): "On 10 September 2017, User:Great scott initiated a RfC on the capitalization issue .... User:SMcCandlish initiated a second RfC on 21 September 2017". Who opened the RfCs is irrelevant; they ran their course. As I've said twice there, anyone's free to open up yet another RfC, but the outcome is rather predictable. If reliable sources do not with near consistency capitalize something, then WP will not either. NB: There's a third RfC, opened 9 November 2019, still at the top of WT:MOSBIO page [84]. It was unanimously in one direction (though just today, almost a month late, TDW belatedly added opposition and someone else did shortly thereafter, when directly canvassed by TDW to do so [85]). From same post: "the Cambridge Australian English style guide says it should be capitalised" (Now we know where this is coming from. It's the same nationalistic "give me my accustomed style preferences, or else" posturing that led to the last topic ban from MoS. NB: The Cambridge style guide for Australia is just their British one with some Australian vocabulary thrown in. It's a learners' work, and not comparable to New Hart's Rules (a.k.a. Oxford Style Manual), one of the style guides on which MoS is actually based. But whatever. For every question in English usage, various style guides conflict with each other. It's why we look at so many of them in building MoS and refining it over time. The problem here is in deciding that this one is right, rather that just a data point. This exact "my source, or else" behavior – a form of WP:OR – was also implicated in the same previous MoS T-ban.) From same post: "What Wikipedia says is defined by definition by what is written [sic] in reliable sources and not the passionate if completely unique interpretation of English grammar of Wikipedia users Eyer and Coffeeandcrumbs." (The conspiracy theorizing and ad hominem slander just gets weirder: neither of those editors had anything to do with that guideline wording, and as usual the factual claims are simply fake. How Wikipedia styles what it writes is determined by consensus at MoS, among all editors who care to participate. WP does not write articles on, say, chemistry in the style of a chemistry journal and video game coverage in the style of a gamer magazine; it uses the same style throughout the encyclopedia. Our consensus on that style is based on mainstream, academic-leaning, high-reputation style guides, and our analyses of aggregate RS usage of English, via Google Ngrams, etc.) "Perhaps it might be time for an RfC to whack WP:JOBTITLES on the head once and for all if this keeps up: the take of this handful of users is so grammatically unusual that I highly doubt it'd survive full-blown scrutiny extending beyond the usual suspects on this page." [86] (Pure WP:BATTLEGROUNDing, conspiracy theorizing, and falsifying facts to cast aspersions at TDW's "enemies". And more nonconstructive "I wish there was an RfC so I could WP:WIN" posturing. So, just open a fourth RfC and get it over with. I'm confident in the outcome. Why isn't TDW, without first trying to eliminate his chief opposition with whom so many other editors vocally agree?) These are "discussions that impact hundreds if not thousands of articles." [87] ... "As a matter of process, considering this RfC proposes specific changes to specific articles, it would generally be Wikipedia practice to notify users on those particular talk pages that it is proposed to change them." [88] (Pure balderdash, and WP:GAMING. We would never in a million years notify "hundreds if not thousands" of article talk pages about some RfC. WP:FRS exists for a reason. So do WP:CENT and WP:VPPOL if people feel a particular issue rises to that level.)

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

In the ongoing, broader MOS:JOBTITLES thread

"applied in ways that are ungrammatical and contradict all usage in reliable sources" [89] (The same two falsehoods as usual.) From same post: "a couple of editors changing proper noun usages as if they were common nouns with religious fervour" (Thats it, denigrate other editors with argument to emotion and straw man fallacies.) From same post: "we've got editors claiming that Wikipedia should essentially rewrite the rules of English grammar" (A blatant fabrication, for the same ad hominem purpose.) From same post: As if we couldn't already tell this was just TDW's personal pet peeve, the editor concludes that the output of JOBTITLES "generally looks ridiculous". (Never mind all the other style guides, and modern, mainstream publications that do not capitalize public office and commercial job titles. They'r'e all just stupid and wrong!) Decides to double-down on this opinion-mongering and denigration of those who don't agree: "replacing fine prose with worse prose in the process" [90] (Everyone's just a terrible writer unless they write TDW's way.) Makes one of those comments worse: "essentially rewrite the rules of English grammar and decapitalise proper nouns" [91] (Adds in the linguistically confused claim that because some people capitalize office titles that they are "proper nouns". More on that below.) "every discussion on this page featuring this stuff seems to feature the same five or so people with strong opinions that are never grounded in any actual sources of any kind" [92] (More shamelessly false aspersions. This guideline is tested at least weekly, sometimes several times per day, at WP:RM and almost always depends on a source usage analysis.) In same post: "I'm not sure this ever had consensus in the first place." (It's thrice-RfCed, but it's not a consensus because TDW doesn't like it.) "The concept of office titles as proper nouns is completely lost on these people" [93] (Yet another "insult other editors to hide my argument being empty" ad hominem. There is no consensus in any sense that job and official titles are "proper nouns"; the sources don't say that, and editors in the aggregate don't agree with that because, of course, the sources don't say that. Reliable sources on English usage mostly say to capitalize these things when they are directly attached to a name. Some also suggest doing it when discussing the title/office itself as the subject, an idea that MoS adopted, mostly to forestall "give me capitals or else!" lobbying, apparently to no avail.) That same post [94] rails on and on about someone TDW is sure misinterpreted the guideline and someone else who didn't notice a prior RM. TDW is angry, at individuals, and is misdirecting it at a guideline and at people who understand and apply the guideline, and at people who don't take the TDW view on the question, and who try to warn TDW that venting angrily at everyone and accusing them of being stupid and a conspiracy isn't going to end well. "the whims of a small handful of Wikipedians shouldn't override actual reliable sources on correct grammar" (Same stuff: denigrate other editors, assert falsely that they have the sources wrong when we all know otherwise, and falsely claim it's a grammar matter, i.e. a right or wrong matter.) In the same post, TDW again tries to rely on Australian publications and is pushing an explicitly nationalistic angle. But WP:ENGVAR does not apply to things like when to capitalized office titles; Australian usage is as mixed as British and American and Canadian. ENGVAR applies to firmly fixed matters of national-level dialectal differences, like the colour/color split.) "There are a whole bunch of people frustrated about this who haven't seriously challenged it because of the hassle of going up against the hardcore RfC crowd" [95] (Except there seem to be maybe five such people, all of them much calmer about it than TDW. I have no idea what nefarious conspiracy "the hardcore RfC crowd" might be, but TDW seems unclear on how consensus is formed and how RfCs work. I've never heard of anyone being afraid to participate in them.) From same post: "A fire always starts with a spark, and traction only comes from people discussing the issue. This is the first step, not the only one." (This amounts to a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLEGROUND declaration. At first I wasn't entirely sure that's what it was, but TDW's call to come join him in an offsite mailing list to strategize about how to overturn MOS:JOBTITLES makes it very, very clear. TWD is an activist against WP guidelines the editor dislikes. This is a WP:NOTHERE activity, albeit in a confined space. While TWD is clearly "HERE" when it comes to creating article content, this person is obviously not competent in one very particular way and needs to exit MoS-related pages or be removed from them with a sanction. This same sort of rally-to-my-righteous-cause attitude was much of why we T-banned the last editor I recall being T-banned from MoS. The purpose of talk page discussions is not wikilobbyists getting "traction", activists lighting a "fire", generals leading an army though many "steps" on a march to victory; it's collegially coming to a consensus through compromise and reason, for the betterment of the encyclopedia for our readers, not for the satisfaction of one person's pet peeves.) "It patently lacks consensus as a starting point" [96] (TDW is convinced that any guideline the editor doesn't like "lacks consensus" if it wasn't established by an enormous RfC at VPPOL. But we all know 99% of our WP:P&G pages did not originate that way. This material was established by RfCs, and people follow it more and more, and it's upheld every other day in another RM, but that's just not good enough. If TDW can canvass a few people to show up, then obviously that means it's time for a war to get what TDW wants. In at least seven places in this couple of threads, TDW dwells and dwells on a supposedly too-low number of editors at any prior RfCs, yet in this post crows that recent arrivals – namely people whose RM arguments did notn prevail, a grand total of three or so TDW-agreeing people – means the guideline is wrong. Well, no.) In the same post, TDW claims that people editing in compliance with the guideline is the "disruption and destabilisation of articles being edited based on the personal opinions of individual editors" (As usual, TDW is going after editors not commenting on content. And following a guideline is not "based on ... personal opinions". As Mandruss put it: "[Editors] are merely implementing a guideline that has existed unchanged for 18 months. If that's 'disruption and destabilisation of articles', I'd like to know what guidelines are for. ... It makes no sense that a dozen or so editors should be able to block implementation of a guideline because they disagree with it." And it's not even that many.) Now TDW starts getting nasty. "Suggesting that users who disagree with you are going to get banned is comical behaviour and you know better." [97] (Of course, I did no such thing. What I actually said was that TDW "seems unaware that 'become an activist against guidelines I don't like' behavior routinely leads to topic bans. (Fortunately, most editors who arrive at MoS, AT, or other WP:P&G pages with this attitude are disabused of it before it gets to that level.)" And that's true, both as to typical long-term process outcomes, and the usual efficacy of drawing attention to those outcomes.) From the same post: "This is how a tiny handful of users who frequent MOS pages are used to acting:" (conspiracy theory again) "try to shut down discussion" (no one did that) "ludicrously aggressive personal attacks" (there were none, at all), "intimidate people into thinking moving to change the thing is too hard or pre-emptively moving an RfC too early." (no one did either of those things, though I think the second was meant to say "closing", and no one did that either). And you've just got the wrong mark if you think that's going to work here." (Pure battlegrounding.)

And there's more:

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

In another, unrelated RfC at the same page, about whether to use plain English "Justice Mary Gaudron" or the law-journal obscurantism "Gaudron J" (a no-brainer), TDW's take (10 December): "it's an (extremely common) convention for how to refer to a judge in writing. We write about topics based on what the sources use, not on the opinions of some random guy on the internet." (Another mass-besmirching of anyone who worked on MoS or who writes in compliance with it, supposing that MoS and we get ideas not from style guides and other sources but from Web forums. And it's yet another falsehood and another IDHT: TDW posted this long after other editors in the same short discussion had pointed out that this style is not general, common usage, but only used in law citations. And it's more activism against the guidelines and how they work; WP certainly does not write articles about legal topics in the way that legal sources like law journals would; that's the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, and would be against MOS:JARGON, WP:TECHNICAL, WP:NOT#JOURNAL.) The same thing came up again here, and TDW posted (19 December) a shorter version of the same "do it the lawyer way" idea, despite that getting no support before. (IDHT again; TDW was alone in an RfC otherwise unanimously against the idea, a 14 to 1 WP:SNOWBALL. This is someone who is not trying to build consensus and go along with it, but who is importing a "write my way, dammit" attitude from offsite and trying to apply it here, meanwhile accusing other editors of conspiracies to force others to write their way; it's pure projection. This is a WP:CIR problem and why I think a T-ban will eventually be necessary if the behavior doesn't change.) Given that I was calmly critical of TDW's !votes in both of these discussions (in nearly the same words, given that they're basically duplicate threads: [98], [99]), and posted those demurrers on 27 December, the same day that TDW suddenly got involved in MOS:JOBTITLES stuff, and increasingly combative about it, I think this is too "coincidental" to ignore. It looks like TDW doesn't like being contradicted or criticized (that's an "attack", you see), so has gone on the warpath, seeking revenge. I'm not sure what else would explain going to ANI because you're mad at someone for suggesting that ANI might be needed, and other strange antics. More pointless battlegrounding: After I observed that the RfC at the top of WT:MOSBIO was unanimous, TDW added a contrary !vote a month late and canvassed another, as noted above. The "rationale" for this seems to just have been to post a "stick it to you" message at me [100], since obviously it will not have an effect on an old RfC. The pseudo-!vote states "Many of these positions are never decapitalised in any form of usage, so it'd just be an attempt to use Wikipedia to push a position." So, not only reiteration of the same bogus claim, but a diffuse accusation that you're PoV-pusher if you don't do things TDW's way, if you follow the guideline when TDW doesn't like it. This is the same tiresome incivility by skirting the edge of the exact letter of WP:CIVIL, being snide toward all and sundry by waving a hand in a general direction than pointing a finger at an individual. Needs to stop. Returns to trying to rely on his preferred Australian pedagogical style guide [101], in the same post as going off on The Chicago Manual of Style, being clearly under the impression that MoS just does what it does (nope; it's one of many style guides consulted in building MoS, though it is one of the main five or so, only some of which are American). That was more "only my preferred sources matter" hypocrisy and cherry-picking. More of that here: "someone with a strong preference for CMOS has managed to get that into the MOS" (Yes, it's clearly the CMoS conspiracy!). In same post: "as it gets more aggressively rolled out in a global project" (If you don't agree with TDW you're "aggressive". And TDW is again trying to make an ENGVAR case for something that cannot possibly qualify for ENGVAR because of WP:COMMONALITY which supersedes it on all but the most ingrained features of a dialect of English.) The editor simply lacks the information and understanding (about language, English style, MoS and its history, WP:Consensus, etc.) to contribute usefully to these discussions, and cannot seem to resist being snide to opposition, combative against "the system", and finger-pointing at individuals who get in DPW's way. Then the canvassing/collusion post: "if you're yet another person who's frustrated with WP:JOBTITLES but you don't want to put yourself on the receiving end of the kinds of threats and personal attacks that are par for the course from its defenders here, feel free to contact me privately. This is something we'll be working on for a while." [102] Above, TDW is playing a CYA game, claiming this meant to take it to user talk, but that's not a plausible interpretation, since no discussions on-wiki are private. Aside from that, forming a WP:FACTION on-wiki with the explicit purpose of lobbying against a guideline is verboten; WP:MFD will delete such pages with prejudice, and has done so many times in the past, per WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTHERE, WP:USERPAGE, WP:TPG, WP:NOT, etc. (For an MoS-pertinent example see here, and another here). When I objected to this, TDW exploded: "This is the second time you've directly threatened me for having a different opinion from you." [103] (Just plain false. If TDW cannot tell the difference between "a different opinion" and "violating WP policy", we have a really serious problem here.) Repeats the same hyperbolic nonsense: "direct threats when someone disagrees with you". From same post: "Changing things on Wikipedia often takes time, especially when you know there's existing small-but-determined opposition, which is obvious to anyone who's been on Wikipedia for more than five minutes." (Just doubling down. Not "Oops, I shouldn't canvass and conspire", but an stated plan to continue for a long time, because TDW things battle lines are drawn, and that doing this is normal. This is the main reason I think a T-ban is necessary; this could translate into years of disruption otherwise. From same post: "you're already under one discretionary sanction for your talk page interactions over the MOS." (Wow. Not only is this factually wrong – there is no such sanction – the obvious intent of this is to be threatening/intimidating. If anyone doubts that, notice that this ANI thread was opened not long afterward. Even after TDW was corrected about this "sanction" thing. Another competence problem: if you can't stop running to a noticeboard to file an unclean hands vexation ANI to get an upper-hand in a content dispute, even after you realize your "smoking gun" is gone, then you need to step away from the topic area, for a long time.) From same post: "I'm not going to reply to any more of your replies containing threats lest I get drawn into the mire. (Not just yet another false accusation of threats, but a supposed excuse to refuse to address the problematic behavior and to escalate, and TDW did just that in coming here.)

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

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

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

• Firstly, as per the Arbitration enforcement log, SMcCandlish was the subject of a discretionary sanction in May 2019 banning him from interacting with another user for six months over his talk page behaviour on this exact topic. I'm not sure why he's trying to deny this: these things are publicly logged for a reason.
• The RfC he refers to is ongoing and, as of this morning, had three !votes. That's not "not going the way TDW wanted", that's an RfC that desperately needs more input. This is, again, part of the problem: suggesting that it get more feedback (such as by advertising it on the talk pages of the specific high-traffic pages it proposed to amend) is treated like an outrage warranting escalation to even more aggressive behaviour because he sees three !votes as being a completely adequate response to an RfC and gets very angry at the prospect of someone seeing otherwise. My thread on that talk page was obviously not intended as an RfC but my own comments and a request for an informal discussion.
• I wasn't canvassing for "an offsite group to pursue forcing MoS into "the right version", I was conscious that it was likely some people who may have relevant views were being scared off by the aggressive responses I was getting from SMcCandlish for raising it, and suggested that people who might want to collaborate on an RfC could contact me elsewhere. As someone else said above, I absolutely could have phrased that better, but I've had no engagement with this topic outside of that talk page and one WP:RM and don't plan otherwise.
• I'm not sure what form of dispute resolution I could have pursued apart from this: I want the threats and aggression to stop so everyone can work towards a respectful resolution to this, and all I've asked for here is that they do because it's clear it won't stop unless the message comes from senior editors. I'm not asking for more than that.
• I said from my very first comment on that thread that I had issues with how it was being applied in practice and that it should be amended to make things clear. It would be a bit hard for me to think it was a "terrible guideline that must die no matter what" because clearly there needs to some guidance on capitalising offices, and I'm not an expert beyond recognising that some of the ways in which it is currently being applied contradict overwhelming source usage going well beyond the WP:RM that caught my interest. Because the response was so aggressive from the get-go and the very fact I'd raised an issue seemed to be met with rage, I think SMcCandlish entirely missed what I'm trying to do, and what the take of any RfC I move will be. I do think there's a desperate need for some much wider consultation on the finer points of this because, as the history with diffs someone did this morning of the history of that guideline shows, it's generally been instituted and expanded with extremely small amounts of participation.
• There's no assumptions of bad faith or stupidity, although there is, as noted above, some concern about the willingness of people to declare "consensus" from three to five people agreeing on an issue affecting vast amounts of articles. This is, however, largely a process issue as long as people are willing to engage, but it's very difficult to try and move something like that forward when someone is being extremely aggressive: it has the obvious tendency to polarise things. No one is disputing that there are several people who share SMcCandlish's views on the actual content dispute and agree with said views in discussions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Having been formerly subject to a mutual temporary I-ban != "you're already under one discretionary sanction". Verb tenses matter. So does the distinction between WP:IBAN and WP:ACDS. That was just another attempt to backpedal, like claiming that the canvassing to private conversation for long-term strategizing on how to get what you want didn't mean e-mail and protracted tendentiousness.
  • Lots of RfCs do not garner more input than that. We're all volunteers here and cannot be forced to comment on matters that don't interest us. The RfCs close nonetheless and are taken as valid. If not that many care to comment, even via WP:FRS, then that's just how it is. Anyone is free to run another RfC if they think one is needed, and to neutrally "advertise" an RfC to other pages while it's still running, though the result in this case would be predictable (the proposal in that RfC was rather weird, calling for using a completely different capitalization style in the lead sentence, and I think everyone here knows that would never fly).
  • Nope. You're just backpeddalling more and more. It's fine to retract it, and it's good that you're effectively doing so with this. But you can't pretend you didn't write these things: "feel free to contact me privately. This is something we'll be working on for a while" [104] ... "A fire always starts with a spark, and traction only comes from people discussing the issue. This is the first step, not the only one." [105]. The only legit sentiment that can be good-faith distilled from that is that change happens through discussion. But that means on-wiki not "private" discussion, and it isn't "traction" in winning a dispute.
  • For starters, try raising your concerns on a talk page with that editor, without falsely accusing them of "threats" and "aggression", without implying three-editor (or is it two, or five? get your story straight) conspiracies to deny you your pet style, using snide language that implies everyone but you – from fellow editors to off-site style guides – are stupid and "grammatically" wrong, without pretending that sources don't use varying styles, etc. People are often boomerang sanctioned for filing a vexatious ANI grievance with unclean hands and without having made any direct resolution attempts with whomever they're targeting with the ANI.
  • There are no "threats" or "aggression" or "rage" towards you. It's weird to me that you'd use hyperbolic argument to emotion like this (after much of the evidence about you focuses on this bad habit) in the same breath as complaining that I exaggerated your displeasure with the guideline. However, you haven't identified a way to change the guideline other than to propose doing every title differently, by following a simple majority of whatever sources we happen to turn up at the time for that particular case. That would amount in practice to having no guideline, which is what I suggested your goal was. It's not how style is done (or can be done) on Wikipedia, or we would have no consistency at all, even within the same category. See WP:Common-style fallacy; this idea comes up all the time (especially in pop-culture topics). Finally on this bullet-point, the vast majority of our WP:P&G pages' material is instituted with low levels of involvement, and it's always been that way. When P&G material remains stable for long periods and is informed by RfCs and the like during formation and affirmed and refined in later ones – as is the case here – it presumptively has consensus (see WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy). If you want to propose something like "no substantive P&G changes without a 25-editor quorum" or something, you know where WP:VPPRO is.
  • The diff pile provided above conclusively demonstrates consistent (habitual? I don't know, not having diff-dived your editing elsewhere) assumptions by you of other editors' bad faith and stupidity. Every other post you made in these threads has a conspiracy theory or an everyone's-an-idiot-but-me insinuation in it (or both), sometimes more than one per post. That's what's "extremely aggressive"' and "has the obvious tendency to polarize things".
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The interaction ban was obviously what I was referring to, even if I may have gotten the exact basis under which it occurred wrong. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of needing to imagine a second one.
    • That RfC was a call for specific amendments to many specific, high-traffic articles, and yet no one notified those talk pages that there was an RfC to amend them because the RfC's backers were convinced three or four was fine participation. There's no reason not to notify those people: more participation is good, and it undoubtedly gives the guidelines more moral authority when it's proposed to change them down the line. The disinterest in soliciting wider impact on wide-ranging changes is certainly a process issue - and the persistent allegations of "conspiracy theories" for raising it is yet another attempt to shut down people raising legitimate issues with personal attacks.
    • There's no backpedalling there: at no point have I shown interest in doing anything beyond working with some other users on an RfC, though I clearly should've been more aware of the prospect for my words to be deliberately taken out of context considering the comments you had already made at that time. For someone who's enthusiastically been accusing me of "conspiracy theories", I've no real history of editing outside my area of interest at all and didn't plan to start now even if you managed to convince yourself I was sekritly up to something besides working on an RfC.
    • Trying to raise concerns about the aggression of a user who escalates each and every time the subject is brought up doesn't work - here, just as in real-life. For that to work, there has to be the possibility that they're capable of de-escalating on their own without being told to do so by someone they'll listen to. A statement that I was disengaging from your most aggressive threads because I'd had enough was something that you tried to cite above as an escalation on my part (after again escalating your aggressive posts in response to that). I've got no enthusiasm to subject to myself to escalating rage any more than I absolutely have to.
    • You're absolutely right that we haven't identified a way to change the guideline. That's exactly why we don't have an RfC already, why I've been pushing for further discussion the entire time, and why I've looked for interested editors to work with me. I'm seeing cases in which WP:JOBTITLES is attempting to override overwhelming source usage and I'd like this to stop. I also completely agree that "following a simple majority of whatever sources we happen to turn up at the time for that particular case" is completely unworkable. And so, there's a need to fine-tune what we have around the edges so we've got clear guidance that doesn't wildly clash with real-world usage in some situations. I might be able to come up with an answer that gets us closer to that point given time and research - but so might someone else. And that is the kind of thing we could've gotten to if discussions weren't being derailed by the extreme aggression. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Please stop melodramatically calling every disagreement with you an accusation, an attack, aggressive, rage, or anger. It's a very tiresome and transparent argument to emotion fallacy. And you keep doing it even after this is pointed out and after you've been asked to stop. I.e., you are playing the WP:IDHT game again, and intentionally escalating by being inflammatory.
      • No one said there's no reason not to more widely advertise an ongoing RfC. But we don't advertise expired RfCs (though we might re-open a recent one), and more to the point we don't canvass specific people to them.
      • I don't believe anyone's going to read what you wrote (which I quoted) without concluding that you're backpedalling, so I'm not interesting in circular argument with you about it. However, while you did suggest (in genuinely aggressive terms) an RfC at one point when it suited your uncivil rhetorical purpose ("time for an RfC to whack WP:JOBTITLES on the head once and for all .... the take of this handful of users ... the usual suspects on this page." [106]), when it came down to it you later appear to have opposed the RfC idea twice when others wanted to do it: "because of the hassle of going up against the hardcore RfC crowd" [107] (whatever that means), "An RfC is one way of people discussing the issue, but nowhere does it mandate it has to be the first step." [108]. You made circular, miring arguments that re-re-repeated a lot of venting, then ran to ANI to make false accusations of being personally attacked, instead of just dropping the stick and moving on, or opening an RfC, or at least getting out of the way of others who wanted to. (As I've said repeatedly, I think the proposed RfC is unnecessary and will have a predictable outcome, but that people should just do it if they want to rather than continue to argue about wanting to.)
      • "a user who escalates each and every time the subject is brought up" – That's one hell of an accusation, for which you've provided no evidence. Meanwhile, my diffs demonstrate that this actually describes your own behavior (which has actually continued right here in ANI!). So, more projection.
      • "You're absolutely right that we haven't identified a way to change the guideline." – I never said anything like that. I said you didn't propose something workable. You've just been a signal-to-noise-ratio problem in the discussions, pointing fingers at others (very repetitively), making false pronouncements about grammar and sourcing (ditto), mistaking one editor's misunderstanding at RM (which had no effect beyond unanimous opposition) as a cause for battlegrounding against a guideline and everyone who follows it properly, and getting in the way of other editors who already have a clear idea what they want to have an RfC about. Utterly nonconstructive and anti-collaborative. You're wasting other editors' time just to grandstand. Same with this ANI report. WP doesn't need "interested editors to work with [you]" on doing more of any of that. Next, it's not possible for an inanimate guideline to be "attempting to override" anything; individual editors might do that, and you should raise the issue with them. The whole reason for all this drama around you is your failure to understand the difference between "Editor X tried to mis-apply a guideline" and "The guideline is broken, must not have consensus, and is really a 2/3/5-editor plot, I can't make up my mind". We are not missing "clear guidance that doesn't wildly clash with real-world usage in some situations". If source usage is overwhelmingly in favor of a variance from what MoS prescribes in some particular case, then we apply that variance, already; there is no hole for you to patch. The guideline needs some clarity work, as the re-opened RfC on a narrow point about the lead sentence indicates, but that's a discussion you've already !voted in. I hope this is the final round of this waste of time and energy. I fear you're going to recycle the same fallacies and changing of your story, and I'm going to keep pointing out it's fallacious while diffing evidence of what you really did and said. Cf. the first law of holes.
         — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • There is no drama around me whatsoever outside of your aggression. There is a discussion I started, which everyone else is engaging with fine and has already moved things forward in a number of ways. The crux of this seems to be that you have an intense disdain for people generally discussing what they perceive as issues with the guideline at all outside of an instant RfC that you could fight against: you repeatedly refer to discussion as "battlegrounding", you repeatedly declare taking the same interpretation as overwhelming real-world usage as "making false pronouncements" and you've just said that it's "getting in the way" of users with a different opinion. I understand that you don't want me or anyone else to work together (or talk about potential ways of working together) about changing the guideline, but that's an attitude issue for you to work out rather than an issue anyone else on either side needs to take into account. If you don't want to engage in discussions about guidelines in which people are expressing views you might not agree with, don't do it and take your (to use your turn of phrase) WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality elsewhere - there are a bunch of people who strongly agree with you on the content issue who are more than capable of doing that in a constructive and respectful fashion and seeing if we might perhaps move things forward. It can absolutely be the final round of this argument in that case - and in the meanwhile, everyone else will work on finding some common ground, or, failing that, coming up with a proposal that can draw as wide consensus as possible. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

          Just more IDHT, circularity, and misdirectional handwaving. This doesn't warrant any further response.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. More input is always better. It's a bit strange that it's taken 18 months for this to come up, and the RfC attracted nearly no attention for two months, but whatever. The community will work it out one way or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  There's a "Jack and the Beanstalk" joke in there somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I recommend concentrating on the Tendril perversion angle. EEng 00:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  Whew, I thought that was going to be a redirect to something about "tentacle porn".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I don't understand your "WTF does that have to do with anything?" response. You asked a policy question about notice requirements, and I answered it (correctly). If TDW has already been subject to "intensive talk of them being topic banned elsewhere" then this editor's behavior probably needs a more in-depth examination than just what they're doing in one series of threads and one bogus ANI report. I certainly agree that AE and AC/DS would be more expedient, but the user will need to first receive a {{Ds/alert|mos}} (and similar, with a different DS code, if TDW's previous potential topic-ban is in another DS topic area) at User talk:The Drover's Wife. But since I'm the other party in a dispute with that editor, and we already know that any notice, warning, or criticism of any kind will be wrongly spun by this editor as "threats" and "aggression", I don't think I'm the most appropriate editor to leave such a template at that talk page. Nudge, nudge.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  To be absolutely clear, the only person who has ever suggested that I could be topic-banned from anything is SMcCandlish and from an area that my entire contribution to has consisted of !voting in one WP:RM and making comments on one talk page over the space of a week or so regarding possible changes to a guideline that he disagrees with. @Nil Einne:, can you clarify that comment? I'm assuming it's unintended and you were just referring to SMcCandlish's posts but it's a pretty extreme and unfounded personal attack if it was. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly hijacked account vandalising Northern Ireland issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass rollback?

I can't make Writkeeper's script work or I'd probably do it myself. User:2001:8003:55CB:7101:F1C8:257C:B1B:8A27 started by reverting a talk page post by User:Supreme Deliciousness on something irrelevant to Israel[109] and then proceeded to revert more talk page and article edits by the same editor, add the word "Israel" after "Jerusalem" multiple times, and a few ARBPIA violations. I don't see any constructive edits at all and have blocked their spree(eg at times 4 edits per minute). Is there anyone here who can do a mass rollback (or fix mine!)? Doug Weller talk 15:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Jamez42's repeated block deletions

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

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

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

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

• By Oska who came to the article based on an RfC notification.[110]. Oska wrote on 7/7/19:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 14:42, 30 December 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't know about Jamez42's history. I never interacted with him before. Lately, I saw some.. what should I call it? Gaming the system? or claiming that there is consensus and editwarring?. I do edit war sometimes but I usually have fair arguments but what I see from Jamez seems to be POV edits. About the dispute, there was a dispute about a term that Jamez considered WP:LEBAL when it was obviously not. And the second dispute which I still haven't participate in is about whether the U.S. preventing left-wing governments is a regime change and should it be in the scope of the article. I was also going to join the discussion and possibly link the discussion to Russia involvement in regime change and see how we can solve this all together in both articles as both must be treated equally. However, based on what I am seeing here, I doubt that I wouldn't waste my time while trying to solve this because the other editor might be pushing-POV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Topic Ban at least Jamez42 is an aggressive POV pusher whose efforts to make sure anything mentioning Venezuela fits American narratives are so aggressive that I literally stopped editing that area of Wikipedia to avoid them. Their comportment has never been stellar and, based on the information above it looks like these bad habits have intensified. While I'd be satisfied to see them topic-banned from articles about Latin American politics, I question if they are a valuable contributor to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I just thought I'd make a note here about one of the matters I'm involved in above, relating to the "accusations"/"allegations" sections on the regime change articles. Jamez says above that they removed the content about Venezuela in this diff because David Tornheim and I disagreed with its inclusion. But I never said I thought the content should be deleted. I said the content should be moved back to the appropriate location. I've continually expressed concern (on the talk pages of both articles) that moving all the Venezuela content to this new section (which has only ever included Venezuela) serves mainly to cast doubt on the material contained within it, which violates NPOV and isn't what section headings are supposed to be for. I've attempted to fix this ([111]) and have argued against it on the talk pages ([112][113][114], the last of which never received any reply) but was reverted by Jamez42 ([115]) so I basically gave up. But I don't think it should be represented above as if there's a clear consensus for its inclusion. As far as I can tell, David Tornheim and I both oppose it and only Jamez42 is in favour of it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Topic Ban at least A transparently disruptive editor who has no regard for consensus when it goes against his anti-Maduro bias.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment GPRamirez5 was notified about this thread by Oska on their talk page.

Since GPRamirez5 was involved in content dispute of the article as early as of April 2019, I started a thread on the noticeboard below to document long term abuse by GPRamirez5 against me that dates back to April 2019, including incivility and lack of cooperation. I think this should be weighted by the closing editor when evaluating the result of the thread.

Considering that GPRamirez5 is not providing further details or edit diffs to sustain their accusation, I have serious doubts that this vote was casted in good faith and I find it as a personal attack, taking into account our sour exchanges in the past.

In no way is this with prejudice of the development of this thread, and I don't want to take away value in any way from sustained and well-supported complaints against my behavior. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose That RfC close is nowhere near as clear cut as this report seems to imply. The discussion focused on a specific proposed addition for which no consensus to add was found and Jamez42's concerns about NPOV were specifically noted in the close. Topic ban would be massively premature. And really, some of the people complaining about POV editing probably need to take a look in the mirror. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The RfC close clearly states that there is a consensus to add a Venezuela section to the article, just not the specific version proposed by GPRamirez5. That does not warrant deletion of every single other version of the section. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Has any other version of the section had a firm consensus in support? If you've got a version that you and David Tornheim think is satisfactory and Jamez42 doesn't then just cut the Gordian Knot and start another RfC on the specific text. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's say this, Jamez42 has his own preferred version (added here and here), a version that leaves out about 90% of the WP:RS that discusses regime change sanctions starting with Obama, the level and intensity of the sanctions, the calling out by Bolton, Pompeo, Trump, et. al. about "all options are on the table", the 2002 issues, etc. The focus on Jamez42's version starts with talking about Guaido, who as you can see above is someone he puts POV favoritism for. I'll give you some examples. If he doesn't get his way, he just deletes EVERYTHING, or he puts it under the "accusations" section which is a POV title that no other editor but Jamez42 supported. See [[116]] (permalink) started by Cmonghost. It needlessly casts doubt on all the WP:RS that states the U.S. is working towards regime change in Venezuela. By doing this, it emphasizes false claims and conspiracy theories rather than valid claims. It may be true that Chavez and Maduro made accusations that have little merit, but we are not in a position to say the WP:RS that speaks to regime change lacks credibility. That's what so many editors find so problematic. That is not consensus building to demand your own version. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC) [revised 00:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC) per below]

Comment @David Tornheim: Not true. I proposed a week before this RfC an "Accusations" section that arguably had even more content and included Chávez's presidency, based on the consensus in the United States involvement in regime change in Latin America article, to be able to also include disputed claims and precisely look for an agreement.

@RaiderAspect: There's currently no version of the section that has consensus, with possibly the exception of the current one that includes only 2019, but participants of the original RfC have not responded yet. If it helps, and we are to talk strictly about this article, I can offer this timeline:

Timeline

• 25 January 2019: A dynamic IP included a section about Venezuela, spanning from 2017 to 2019, days after the current presidential crisis started. BobFromBrockley Expressed concern about recentism on 29 January in the talk page. An IP expanded the section further on 6 February [117][118].

• 15 February 2019: The date was changed by ZiaLater from 2017-present to 2015–present to include the Obama administration. I contributed the section several times during this period: [119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130]

• 28 February 2019: Section was removed by an IP [131] and restored afterwards by Pokerplayer513 [132] I hid the section due to the volatibility of the section and the WP:RECENTISM concerns raised.

• 3 April 2019: GPRamirez5, who asked for my topic ban below, added another version of the article about the span of 1998-present based on an opinion article by the Washington Post and removed the sourced previous and hidden version of 2015-present. I removed the section on 11 April with the edit summary of Support to opposition is not the same as regime change. Possible WP:OR.

• 14 April 2019: GPRamirez5 started the Venezuela section in the talk page, which has not been archived and can still be read. Five editors in total, including GPRamirez5 and me, participated in the discussion.

• 1 July 2019: GPRamirez5 started a RfC to include the 1998-present section (RFC on Venezuela).

• 16 August 2019: The RfC was closed with the following result:

There is no consensus to add the proposed text to the article. However, there is a consensus to add content regarding "United States involvement in regime change" in Venezuela, just not in the form proposed. An alternative proposal less reliant on Timothy Gill as a source and which was less "POV" (while oppose !voters were not entirely descriptive as to how, precisely, the proposed text was WP:NPOV, Jamez42 suggested there were issues with context in some of the specific incidences described in the proposal), would probably find a consensus. Chetsford (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's important to note that there wasn't any further comments or proposals in this period. Only an IP commented on 15 November 2019 in a section about Venezuela saying "We should add Bolivia to this as well."

• 29 December 2019: David Tornheim added a new version of the section with the 2019 title. I removed the section citing tendetious editing and non neutral phrasing. The text was The U.S. efforts for regime change in Venezuela intensified in January 2019 with the increase of crippling sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and warnings. Mark Weisenbrot writing for the New Republic said the sanctions (which he considers illegal) are a "plan to starve Venezuela into submission."

• 30 December 2019: David Tornheim started another section about Venezuela in the talk page, now titled Venezuela 2. The discussion has gone back and forth, including in the United States involvement in regime change in Latin America article talk page, has gone way longer than the previous section, and currently has three subsections: Recentism?--redux, Accusations section and Stable version.

• David Tornheim added the 27 Februrary 2019 version section, with the 2015–present title. I responded replacing the section with the Accusations title, which includes disputed claims and effectively includes the span of 2002-present.

• 31 December 2019: After disagreement with the Accusations title was voiced in the talk page, I removed the section to continue discussion on another version. GPRamirez5 restored the section.

• 2 January 2020: David Tornheim did a series of changes to the Accusations section, starting with the removal of the "Accusations" title, effectively merging the section. He continued by restoring his 29 December 2019 version of 2019. Other changes included declarations by US officials, citing the Monroe Doctrine, economic sanctions and Alfred de Zayas' opinion about them, de Zayas' opinion in 2019, a reference on his report, The New York Times opinion about the sanctions goals. I added a NPOV tag and pinged Tornheim to participate in the discussion. My main concern was the scope of the article: which years and events are involvement in regime change, particularly regarding the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, where the involvement of the United States has been disputed and is very controversial.

• 4 January 2020: I replaced the section with a version about 2019 that included the United States' recognition of Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela, reports of funding to Guaidó by the US Agency for International Development and sanctions against Venezuela.

• 6 January 2020: Since there still wasn't an agreement on which version to include, I removed the section once again.

• 7 January 2020: I restored the 2019 version seeing that after 24 hours, none of the pinged users that participated in the RfC responded.

This timeline does not include details about talk page discussions (some diffs are included above), exchanges or developments in the Latin America article. RaiderAspect, I can start a RfC on the current 2019 section if needed. Pinging @Mythdon:, who asked for further details regarding the article's edit history. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I revised my comment above based on your claim that this edit was your attempt to add material, when its effect was to discredit it by putting it in the "accusations" section, something neither I nor Cmonghost supported. Cmonghost reverted you, but rather than use WP:BRD, you tried to force it back in. When the discussion didn't go your way you didn't remove the POV section title of "Accusations", but instead deleted the entire section. That's the problem here. That's not working cooperatively and you have not acknowledged that you should not have done that, despite multiple warnings not to. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"Accusations" is not the same as "Conspiracy theories". That also doesn't address the main point and the multiples proposals. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why did you make these two edits ([133],[134]) expanding on "conspiracy theories" in the Accusations section, rather than focusing the content on the WP:RS that address the title of the article: U.S. involvement in regime change? It has the effect of conflating good WP:RS with conspiracy theories. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't argue with you further on this, it is pointless. This is a complaint about edit behaviour, not content dispute. Any third party can read the article's talk page and see the messages there. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Jamez42's POV in favor of Guaido.

On January 11, 2009, Jamez42 made this edit, where

He used Spanish Wikipedia to declare Juan Guaido President of Venezuela--despite the fact that WP:RS almost unanimously says the Presidency is disputed. The edit war over this is described here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(From the reply in David Tornheim's talk page:)

It is ludicrous that you accuse me of having an agenda by quoting an incident that happened a year ago, not to mention in the Spanish and not the English Wikipedia. If you really want to go into depth: Efecto Cocuyo's article mentions 37 times changes (not reverts) in two hours, of which only five were mine: adding a date and an acronym, adding the category "Presidents of Venezuela", adding the predecessor parameter in the infobox, and adding a numeral. Only the last one was a revert of a user [that] reverted three times three different users and removed referenced content.

Did you get to read the article's version before the edit war? You accuse me of not following WP:RS when at the time the article had a section with five reliable sources supporting the claim, and my revert was precisely to restore the referenced content, not to add unreferenced content or to push for a POV. Did you read the talk page of the article and my afterwards proposals? I wasn't the only editor to believe sources supported the inclusion, after administrators intervened there was a thread afterwards that helped to shape the article.

--Jamez42 (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

He did this again at 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election. Rather than following the WP:RS,

He again used Wikipedia to declare Guaido the winner here using WP:OR. Editor Goodposts chided this edit here:

(Undid revision 934471730 by Jamez42 (talk) And it is exactly due to that policy that Guaido cannot be listed as the winner. The sources clearly state that there are two competing claims. It's not Wikipedia's job to verify the integrity of the election, the quorum or to determine the winner. Please see: [135]

He has continued his advocacy to get mention of Guaido "In the News" despite overwhelming opposition from other editors: here (permalink)

--David Tornheim (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC) [revised 06:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)]

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm still going through the links/diffs provided by David, but let me just say that had Jamez42 been a new user, they would've just been slapped with this template. I think when a longstanding user resorts to these kinds of page/section blankings and for this long, it's always a symptom of a larger problem that should the very least be extensively looked into.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Topic Ban - Replying here due to being mentioned and involved in above matters. I believe that Jamez42 is an experienced, competent and passionate editor, however, it is also clear that his passion leads to him leaving a very strong bias in the material he writes. I've encountered him before and was left with the impression he had a pro-Guaido POV (which wouldn't have been an issue, had he not reflected it in the content he created), but I didn't know that he blanked edits as large as these. I don't think that it's a problem that he has a political opinion one way or the other - everyone has biases, knowingly or not. However, his edits have made some articles look more like autobiographies written by Guaido himself, rather than impartial encyclopedic content. He repeatedly reverts content, oftentimes due to claims of Undue weight.

For example in this - diff

He goes on to explain his reasoning - ::(The claims are unequal in legitimacy and recognition, be it internal or external. According to the debate rules, Guaidó need to start the session. There are serious concerns regarding the quorum and Parra did not hold a nominal vote, so the votes in his favor cannot be confirmed. WP:TOOSOON also applies) -Jamez42

However, as you might have noticed, this is little more than WP:OR - and this is the crux of the issue. Wikipedia ought not to become a battleground for the two sides to argue over legitimacy, it ought to be an impartial encyclopedic repository. Furthermore, edits like these clearly conflict with WP:RS as the BCC Source used in the article clearly reflected the fact that there are two competing claims to the presidency of the assembly. What's worse is that this was not the first time he had reverted that same part of the article in favour of selecting Guaido as the sole winner of the election. We all make mistakes and we all argue for what we believe is right, but this taken into the context of what we've seen so far in my opinion demonstrates the editor's desire to push a POV in the pages he edits. His justification for his actions are based on interpretations, which fall under the category of original research.

He went on - for example, in This diff on the page for the Assembly itself, he again undid my edit and restored Guaido as the leader of the assembly. His reasoning for this was that the position was only reflective of the majority leadership, and not leadership of the assembly. That would have been a good argument, if not for the fact that the position leadership was hyperlinked directly to the page for the Presidency of the Assembly itself. This is the third time in a row he had undone one of my edits on the dispute and in doing so restored Juan Guaido to a singular position in assembly leadership. Getting reverted is a natural and normal part of being on wikipedia, but dealing with the repeated deletion of cited content without discussion is frustrating and not conductive to good contributions or the assumption of good faith.

Similar POVs are pushed in other articles relating to Latin America, for example here - where an edit is undone by Jamez42 for citing a primary source, despite the fact that the given primary source is published by the official website of the organization and used only to cite a quoted statement made by the organization tself - a fully acceptible and even encouraged usage per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.

Jamez42's aversion to the topic of US involvement in regime change doesn't apparently include aversion to Russian involvement in regime change - an article he contributed to. There would have been nothing wrong with his edit here, had it had a source (he admits he copied uncited content, complete with the CN tag, in the edit summary), but even if that were so, the fact that he would contribute to one while trying to blank sections of the other is in of itself indicative of a POV.

All in all, I don't belive that any of his edits indivudally are grounds for action to be taken against him, but all of them taken togeter, in my opinion, represent consistent, systematic POV-pushing, incompatible with proper encyclopedic content. I don't believe he is a bad editor, quite the contrary - some of his work isn't bad at all. However, I do think he should stay away from subjects relating to US Involvement in Regime Change, Venezuelan politics and issues relating to Nicolas Maduro and Juan Guaido, Chavism and their counterparts in Latin America. I don't think that actions taken against him should be punitive, but they should definitely make it clear that Wikipedia is not a battleground for determining the leadership of nations or the merits of this or that political idea. I don't believe that the wholesale blanking of cited sections and revertion of cited content without consensus is something that should be allowed to become a trend within the community. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Goodposts: There are many things that I have to disagree with in this comment, but for the time being I will only address the example of the Russia involvement in regime change article and try to answer the rest in a more general response.

Let's please avoid a false equivalence. I rarely remove sourced sections entirely, usually resorting to improving its phrasing or adding more sources, and when I do most of the cases my concerns have to do with WP:ONUS. This seems to be a particular problem in the United States involvement in regime change, when the term seems to has been interpreted too broadly and includes a lot of actions by the United States that may not necessarily fit this defintion. I want to avoid mentioning content dispute because this is a noticeboard to address behavior, but in this case it is necessary to explain the former to explain the latter.

I was the user that started the Russia involvement in regime change article, using a similar format as the one regarding the United States and copying content from other articles with the proper attribution. The only reason why I added the Angola section unreferenced was because I copied it verbatim, like it was established in its original article, and I don't think adding Wikipedia as a source is appropriate (WP:CIRCULAR).

The section was later contested based on the scope of the article, not on verifiability. When the section of Panama was contested on the United States article on similar grounds and it was suggested that a common criteria should apply to both articles, I removed the sections of Crimea and Georgia, and it should be noted that these sections were added by myself and that they well-sources sections. They relied on reliable sources. My rationale for the removal remained the same: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and I removed content that was determined not to be within the scope of the article.

Regardless, the section about Panama was restored on the ground of "no consensus". I believe the question should be, and what I ask is, if my removals have not been justified or have been disruptive. If this is the case, I express my willingness to avoid it in the future and to accept any measure that is deemed as necessary to prevent it. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly institute 1RR restrictions, oppose topic ban. As an editor formerly involved in Venezuelan topics (but not at the specific articles about US involvement in regime change in these threads, IIRC), I have waited to weigh in to see what evidence emerged. I unwatched and backed out months ago of all Venezuelan topics because keeping them clean (in terms of Spanish--> English prose issues, citation and MOS cleanup, merging and moving text between articles, etc) was difficult and time-consuming, and I ended up with such a high edit count on each article that some Reddit idiot accused me of being a paid government schill (not).

I have some observations which I hope will help point the way forward.

This is a content dispute, with several twists.

Jamez42 has a thorough understanding of all of the sources (that is, both English and Spanish-language) that editors who don't speak Spanish might not have. As such, he is in a position to understand and weigh DUE WEIGHT issues as English-only speakers might not be. On the other hand, WP:NPOV encourages editors to "write for the opponent"; I have seen Jamez42 try to accomplish this in the past, but he is at a disadvantage with respect to his command of English when trying to incorporate English-language sources, particularly if those sources cover views that are not covered in Spanish-language sources (and at times, fringe), meaning he has not likely encountered those views before, and may have a harder time expressing them in English.

Some other editors mentioned in or chiming in to this dispute (not all) have a limited command of what the full body of reliable sources say on Venezuelan topics (that is, English and Spanish), sometimes bring fringe or UNDUE sources to the topics, and can be very aggressive to deal with. Of the editors in disagreement with Jamez42, I found Cmonghost to be the most receptive to consensus-building, collaboration, and discussion; they seemed willing to listen to discussion around issues of DUE WEIGHT, FRINGE, etc. Jamez42 speaks excellent English, but keeping up with the level of discussion needed to sort out POV, WEIGHT, FRINGE etc must be trying for him. Particularly when the article talk pages are bombarded with walls of text, aggressive tone, and the need to carefully review what ALL reliable sources say.

I encourage all parties here to recognize each other's strengths and weaknesses, have patience, and try harder to listen to each other. If the problems in the Venezuelan suite of articles cannot be resolved amicably, then I would suggest 1RR restrictions be put in place, to encourage discussion, before silencing an editor who has broad knowledge of what all the sources say, and appears to be the only editor in this discussion who can argue from that position.

I should be clear, though, in how the 1RR would need to be applied. Once text is removed, all parties need to discuss before any text is reinstated once deleted. Because some editors on that topic bring fringe sources and have a one-sided view, they should not be reverting in support of each other; they should truly work to understand when their sources are UNDUE, recognizing that four editors who have English as a native language, against (at times aggressively) one who does not, should be accounted for with patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

> Once text is removed, all parties need to discuss before any text is reinstated once deleted.

This would be a bizarre condition to place on all other editors and one that would give uneven power to the deleter. It is essentially removing the Revert stage out of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Oska (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oska Yes, I can see that proposal won't work. I don't know how to equalize the situation when all parties are bringing (as many editors do, wittingly or not) a stance, but the anti-US stance is overpowering the one editor who can represent that Venezuelans themselves are behind the push for a change in government. Silencing the one voice who can neutralize the article isn't right, but I don't how to fix that. That's why I don't get the big $$$ for being an admin.

And I see year-old diffs from es.Wiki accusing Jamez42 of POV for writing what was thought to be true at the time according to sources; there seems to be a lack of parity in terms of getting all sides of the story in our articles, and giving them due weight according to all sources. If one POV succeeds in topic banning someone they dislike, we risk ending up with all pro-chavismo sources like Max Blumenthal and Mark Weisbrot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record: per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, my interest is not representing or helping with a change of government (or situation for that matter) in Venezuela, just describing the situation as accurately as possible. I give equal importance to the content regarding Guaidó's embezzlement scandal or that about human rights abuses in the country. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: the one editor who can represent that Venezuelans themselves are behind the push for a change in government. I thought we are supposed to represent what the WP:RS says rather than help one Venezuelan editor be the spokesperson for the Venezuelans who want regime change. Would you make the same statement if a pro-Maduro Venezuelan was deleting reliably sourced sections critical of Maduro and speaking on behalf of Maduro as you contend TeleSUR does. Besides, I think you know there are other Venezuelan editors who speak Spanish who work on all these same articles and know the WP:RS. (Jamez42's response above came in while I was writing this). --David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Correct: articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, according them DUE WEIGHT and following NPOV. When the preponderance of reliable sources present one view, we give lesser weight to minority views. The majority view of most reliable sources is aligned with Jamez42's editing. Of every editor weighing in against Jamez42 here, he is the one editor who I have seen (on other Venezuelan articles-- admittedly, I was not involved at the specific articles in dispute here) who brings knowledge of a preponderance of reliable sources (English and Spanish) to the table.
  Almost every other editor opposing Jamez42's edits has brought fringe opinion and minority viewpoints to the discussions (at least that was my experience in the months I was actively involved at other Venezuelan articles). There are more of those kinds of editors weighing in. Explaining sentence-by-sentence to editors who know little of the full sources why their suggested sources are fringe or UNDUE can be exhausting. Particularly when some of those editors are aggressive or borderline BATTLEGROUND.
  I have no intention of being drug into these specific articles, but one can look at the Table of Contents at United States involvement in regime change in Latin America and see problems not only with where to put Venezuela, but how any country is categorized/defined. It's a POV article with a POV structure to begin with. Which are "accusations" and in which of those cases was there actually US intervention? It's a dreadful article overall, with some sections being a series of links, so what are the criteria for defining U.S. involvement? Are you applying the same standard to Venezuela as to others? This is why I gave up on how much it took to clean up related topics: I don't enjoy working on articles where the rest of the article is such a mess that you can't even figure out where to start to apply policy-based rational and consensus-building discussion. If you are going to compare US involvement in Venezuela to US involvement in Chile, well then, Jamez42 "Accusations of" seems like a better formulation.
  My suggestion is that, for those claiming Jamez42 is POV as a way to topic ban him from Venezuelan topics, while they themselves are unlikely to be able to demonstrate that their edits are neutral and a reflection of the DUE WEIGHT given these topics in reliable sources, might work harder to "write for the opposition" themselves, broaden the sources they consult, and consider how a thorough examination of their edits would look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: you do understand that few reliable sources have much favorable to say about Maduro, right? Do you see it is possible to write text not favorable for Maduro without it being POV? If reliable sources have plenty negative to say about Maduro, reflecting that in our articles is not POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Yes, western media (which Wikipedia favors) has little favorable to say about Maduro. If Jamez42 simply paraphrased what the WP:RS said, we wouldn't be here, but instead he introduces an anti-Maduro bias that is not representative of the WP:RS by, for example, his block deletions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that eliminate mention of the U.S. involvement in trying to topple Maduro that is clearly found in the WP:RS. Also his edits declaring Guaido President of Venezuela on Spanish Wikipedia and declaring Guaido won the Jan. 2020 election (explained above) show a similar bias. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm noticing that of the original messages/warnings cited by Tornheim, five ([136][137][138][139][140][141]), more that half, are either from the United States involvement in regime change or the United States involvement in regime change in Latin America articles, the most notable exception being the Hugo Chávez article, an article where I haven't edited as much as others. Articles whose dispute, I have to stress again, have happened over the course of a year. In fact, I first encountered in the main space two of the five original users quoted, Oska and SharabSalam, for the first time in these articles.

These articles do not represent much broader range of articles I edit in. In fact, I'm not interested in articles about the United States or its foreign policy except when it affects Venezuela. Seeing how conflictive the "US involvement" and "involvement in Latin America" articles are, I'd be happy to stop editing in those articles if it is deemed appropriate. Besides the 1RR proposal, an interaction ban can also be considered.

A topic ban is being proposed as a sanction againt me, accusing me of a very strong bias", an "anti-Maduro bias", pushing for "American narratives" and a "pro-Guaido POV". However, besides talking about the aforementioned two articles, there's no discussion regarding the demonstration of these biases. There are no edit differences as consistent as tried to with the United States involvement articles, only isolated diffs. What I don't want is that my contributions to Venezuelan politics articles are considered as bias merely because it is a controversial topic. I can offer some counterexamples, including that I was the first time to include content about Guaidó's embezzlement scandal, or if we are to talk about Latin America more broadly, that I included content about the excessive use of force during the Chilean protests,[142][143] whose government wouldn't't precisely be described as "left-wing".

This begs the question: How are they expressed? Has my behavior consistently been disruptive across the articles I have edited in? Has the phrasing in my editions not been neutral and according to NPOV? Have I not adequately summarized a contraty position? Are the references that I'm including in the article not reliable? Edit warring? Stonewalling? There are some questions that I believe should be addressed:

1. Have I engaged in disruptive or biased editing?
2. What behavior or patterns are characteristic of this?
3. In which articles or pages have these issues taken place?
4. Has this behavior or patterns been consistent or systematic?

This does not mean that I am denying that these affirmations can be true. In the last year, I can remember at least one instance when I violated the three reverts rule in Guaidó's article nonetheless (June), an editor notified me about this and I thanked them for letting me know, self reverting right afterwards. This only means I want to bring attention to these specific instances and patterns. As I have expressed before, if I learn about them I really look forward to fix and correct them, and in the case the community decides that this is not possible, that measures are taken to ensure that these patterns or behaviours are prevented. Only in this case, and per WP:PUNITIVE: to ensure repetition of disruptive behavior if there's no other way to prevent it. But the only way to avoid them is knowing which they are, and so far these are ambiguous accusations.

I have to emphasize that a topic ban on Venezuelan politics on the very least, broadly constructed, would greatly affect my activity in Wikiprojects and articles that are not directly related to the current political crisis, including the Venezuelan cinema task force and the Women in Red WikiProject, as well as articles about economy or society.

@David Tornheim:, I really hope that these: [144][145][146][147][148][149] are not attempts to WP:CANVASS editors that I have had disagreements with in the past to influence an outcome for this complaint that is preferable to you, specially given that in the past you have been warned against it in this same noticeboard.

Before starting this complaint, you responded to a Request for Comment that I started about the reliability of The New Republic. You said that The same group of editors who dominate the Venezuela pages have been eliminating these sources one-by-one with their !iVotes and often citing a connection to or supportive views of Maduro. Although you didn't say names except for mine, I assume that includes SandyGeorgia. Do you feel this is part of a bigger pattern? Do you want to notify these editors to ask them about this? You also said that I have good reason to believe this editor wants the New Republic eliminated to make it easier to delete material that is unfavorable to Juan Guaido who he supported in this this edit war here.. You even mentioned you'd be "happy" to mention these concerns in WP:AN/I. Is this an issue that will also be brought up here?

I was hoping for this complaint to address edit behavior, but it has turned increasingly about content dispute. Tornheim cites one of my edits in the Spanish Wikipedia arguing that it is proof of POV-pushing. Not only this can be a red herring when only the behavior of the English Wikipedia is being considered, where I have been active for a shorter time and have not contributed in as many articles, but also ignores my reply in their talk page:

It is ludicrous that you accuse me of having an agenda by quoting an incident that happened a year ago, not to mention in the Spanish and not the English Wikipedia, and you appear to show worrying ignorance about the situation. If you really want to go into depth: Efecto Cocuyo's article mentions 37 times changes (not reverts) in two hours, of which only five were mine: adding a date and an acronym, adding the category "Presidents of Venezuela", adding the predecessor parameter in the infobox, and adding a numeral; Only the last one was a revert of a user [that] reverted three times three different users and removed referenced content.

Did you get to read the article's version before the edit war? It's interesting that you accuse me of not following WP:RS when at the time the article had a section with five reliable sources supporting the claim, and my revert was precisely to restore the referenced content, not to add unreferenced content or to push for a POV. Did you read the talk page of the article and my afterwards proposals? I wasn't the only editor to believe sources supported the inclusion, after administrators intervened there was a thread afterwards that helped to shape the article.

Contrary to what Tornheim claims, my revert restored removed referenced content WP:RS, not the other way around.

Tornheim also describes my support for a nomination "In the News" as "advocacy". Excuse me, but what does that have to do with anything? How is that proof of biased editing? I wasn't even the nominator, and they fail to mention that I proposed a more neutral/less controversial blurb to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV. From Incumbent Venezuelan National Assembly (NA) president Juan Guaidó is prevented from entering parliament to vote in the NA presidential election as Maduro-backed candidate Luis Parra is declared the winner. to Juan Guaidó's position as president of the National Assembly of Venezuela is disputed by deputy Luis Parra This reminds me when another complaint was opened against me back in 2018 for nominating El Paraíso stampede to "In the News", on the grounds of "trying to spread anti-Venezeulan bias": I believe these users are paid political advocates who are trying to spread anti-Venezeulan bias in this article during a time of maximum exposure on the front page "In the News" section (which Jamez42 nominated the article for)

What would have been disruptive is insisting or spamming the nomination, or canvassing to get support. I only commented once, and that is enough for me.

Since this complaint greatly affects my activity in the WikiProject Venezuela, where unsurprisingly I am an active member, it is only appropriate that I leave a notification about this complaint in its talk page. Regards. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification in WikiProject. --Jamez42 (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Per Cmonghost's request, I also left a notification in the main two articles in dispute:[150][151] --Jamez42 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment and oppose topic ban: I oppose a topic ban for many of the reasons Sandy stated above: Jamez is of such benefit with sources it would be damaging to kick him off the articles. I only came here to comment on the general context of this ANI (from reading the opening and a few other statements above) and Jamez' general editing behavior; I have, though, avoided those regime change articles and cannot speak of his edits there - why I have avoided them is because from brief visits the topic seems overall... messy. Jamez cannot be the only contentious editor there, surely? This ANI almost seems like picking on him - there are many editors in this area (Latin American politics) with stated biases, refusal to discuss, and even poor command of English (whereas Jamez' is very good) who change articles to their own POV over and over. Even some (not all, there are also plenty good editors - in which I would include Jamez) who are more amiable to discussion still don't listen to policy and discussions die and incorrect or biased information languishes on pages for a long time. Yet only Jamez, one of the most active, whose good edits certainly outweigh bad, is being brought to discussion? Whenever I have mentioned to Jamez that some edit or other could be bad/POV/misunderstood or similar, he has apologized and is always open to discussion. If those discussions don't go anywhere, that is not only on him - and if he misunderstands them, we can always ask and explain rather than assume he's acting in bad faith. Kingsif (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban Jamez42 is a valuable member of the Venezuelan project. Jamez has demonstrated experience with Venezuelan sources, specially in what is related to Venezuelan media, organizations and legislative aspects. Also Jamez42 knows his way through Wikipedia, Jamez comments on talks when controversy arrives, most surely with sources and guidelines (and even opening RfCs), and also gets things that sometimes escape other users like size problems, charged terminology issues and linking Venezuelan articles together. On the issue of US involvement in regime change and Latin America, I have tried to contribute to those articles but the conversations there are a complex topic to handle (compared to my usual topics, mostly physics), as opinionated articles on the topic are abundant and it can get very controversial. I have before raised some concerns on how there lacks consensus on what should be written in those articles. I have seen Jamez trying to solve some important concerns that have appeared there, not only on the Venezuelan topics. In the case of Venezuela there was/is some text written that by consensus has to be reworked and some of Jamez concerns have been extensively discussed in the talk page. Considering the complexity of the Venezuelan crisis and other Latin American topics Jamez engages into, Jamez is not the typical contentious user, in these kind of articles there are many users that come through declaring NPOV by discussing unrelated topics, disrepecting the guidelines, adding fallacies or just not engaging in conversation. If Jamez has been involved in contentious editwarring, Advice: I hope a simple warning may suffice on these topics, Jamez seems to me a comprehensible user that may understand its consequences. --MaoGo (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose bans: One must understand how polarizing and controversial it is editing topics on Venezuela. Reverting rules occassionally get broken on accident and current events are a nightmare of edit conflicts. Editing Venezuelan topics is so controversial that a Wikipedia has been censored within the country. With that being said, I believe that Jamez42 has done their best at navigating the minefield that is editing Venezuelan topics. They have been instrumental with dealing with a serial sockpuppeteer that has been involved on Venezuelan and other projects, upholding the integrity of the Wikipedia project. As for this AN/I, I do not see an adequate warning by User:David Tornheim or other users. Unfortunately, this discussion is a harsh move of going over someone's head. There was a lengthy spiel by David on Jamez42's talk page and some discussions on random article talk pages, but no explicit warnings. Overall, I believe that Jamez42 has done a thorough job at improving the Wikipedia project and Venezuelan topics. If there were any poor editing behaviors that were turning into a bad habit, I am sure this undue use of AN/I will serve as an adequate warning.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Note that the three previous responses defending Jamez42's behaviour, all from WikiProject Venezuela members, appeared after Jamez42 canvassed the WikiProject Venezuela talk page using a notice (which Jamez42 mentions above) that was, IMO, not neutrally worded. (I don't doubt that these are their genuine opinions, and I hope the three users above aren't offended by my pointing this out, but I think it bears mentioning. Based on my understanding of WP:CANVASSING, this was an inappropriate notification, but I am open to being corrected if it is not.) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment:

Jamez42's walls of text are further muddying the water here. He seems to be too invested in how Guaido and Maduro are portrayed in Wikipedia to edit objectively. Looking at his top most edited articles makes it clear that this is just about the only thing he really cares about editing, rather than the overall health of our project.

These block deletions are a big problem: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

On this topic, he's been warned numerous times for:

• Not following WP:BRD ([152],6-30-19,[153],1-1-2020)
• Edit-warring (3-11-19, 1-6-20)
• Block deletions when there is a dispute [154] 11-5-19
• POV editing (3-7-19,1-1-2020)
• Ignoring consensus [155],[156],1-1-2020

I believe he needs to take a break from these articles that he is too invested in and which he is unable to editing so as to follow the WP:RS. He needs to learn to work cooperatively rather than make wholesale deletions of sourced-material. A Topic Ban would accomplish this. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

So instead of reading my response you decide to dismiss it and insist on the accusations that I have responded to? That sounds like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. And I have to ask, what in my behavior has changed since this complaint wa opened for you to know ask for a topic ban for me, when you were only asking for a ban only in two article before? I feel you're moving the goalposts.

You have repeatedly accused me of not following WP:BRD based on the edit diffs that you have cited ad nauseam, but if the timeline that I included above says anything is that you were the one making the bold edits, effectively putting the cart before the horse. Instead of just reverting, I included different versions a couple of times to look for an alternative version. I remind you that repeatedly adding content without consensus is just as disruptive as reverting. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Threatening messages

Note: Kudpung has written to me privately. I am relieved to say that things have turned out far better than I could have expected. I do concede there are likely things I could have done better. I’m satisfied that Kudpung never intended to intentionally intimidate me, given my unusual history on Wikipedia I can see I was probably a giant red flag. I’m sure both sides have learned from this moving forward. Not sure if Kudpung wants to respond, but we can close this incident. Many thanks to those who were looking out for myself, and as well to those who were looking out for Kudpung. As editors, we are all works in progress. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Winged Blades of Godric, mate, most admins have ANI on their watchlist. That's really not helping. Guy (help!) 23:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You lorded it over Kudpung until he lashed back, so I'm not inclined to exonerate you on terms of "empathy". No comment on the PTSD, as I don't know you; I guess it's one of the hazards that admins in particular should be aware of when throwing their weight around, so no excuses there. Regardless, I would expect you to realize that the "biblical quote" is merely a common way of phrasing the sentiment that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. He's not telling you that you have sinned, that thou shalt be smitten for eating crustaceans on the Sabbath, or anything else that would imply "unhinged" behaviour. This assumption at least strikes me as disingenous and drama-mongering and makes me suspect that you are hamming it up to some degree. - Unfortunately lashing back is far less permissible in an admin and he leaned pretty far out of the window doing it, so now shit's blown up (and everybody is taking the opportunity to get various other hooks in). High fives all round. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where I “Lorded” anything over Kupung. If that was the perception, then I apologise. He was telling people it wasn’t his “job” to check for notability before tagging articles, so I felt something needed to be said. He also made unfounded accusations that another admin was misusing their tools at the same time. I am not an admin. In context, the Biblical quite seemed like “you’re a sinner, watch out or I’ll expose you because I’ve been researching your transgressions for the last two hours. Extensively.” I have never, inicidentally, heard of any admin who resorted to the Bible to “deescalate” a situation. What if I’m an atheist if a Muslim? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Many atheists, myself included, often quote the Bible - along with Shakespeare it's the richest source of quotable apposite phrases in the English language. Our language is full of Biblical allusions. If you don't like it, use another language. DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I've heard "if you don't like being treated with hostility, don't edit Wikipedia" and "if you don't like being spoken to that way, don't [act in whatever way was perceived to invite uncalled-for attacks]", but this is the first time I've seen "if you don't like being spoken to that way, change your [presumably native] language". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s certainly a new low for me also. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI can be a two-edged sword. That's part Biblical too. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It was never meant to be a forum for abuse. That was never my intent when I started the Noticeboard. Please stop. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, DuncanHill, I happen to agree with you that references to (and even direct quotes from) the Bible are so embedded in the English language that a user who wishes said references not be used in conversation with them may have a difficult time achieving that expectation on Wikipedia. Given the size and nature of the project, one often finds themself interacting with editors for the first time, and there's no easy for an editor to convey such a preference up-front; furthermore, one interacts with so many people from day to day that even if someone has expressed this preference to them, they might have difficulty remembering the preference if they don't interact with the user particularly frequently. But if an editor has just stated in conversation with you that they find it unnerving to have the Bible quoted at them, why on earth would you deliberately do so in your reply, as you have above? I gather that you two have butted heads before, but regardless of your past interactions, it seems intentionally rude. It's easily avoided—after all, Wikipedians tend to be well-practiced at paraphrasing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make above was how bloody difficult it is to use English under a fatwah against Biblical language. I was going to quote Kipling's "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" elsewhere in this thread, but Kipling quotes the Bible in the bit I wanted, so apparently I can't. DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

• The comments by Kudpung on multiple spaces are clearly meant to intimidate chris sherlock and missvain -- and its not a the first time that he has shown undue attention on an editor "discovered" through his work on New Page Patrol or participating in conversations where someone disagrees. Sadads (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• I believe that this should go to ArbCom as well. You can get a good sampling of the concerns related to Kudpung in the guides listed off Template:ACE2019 as well as some of the questions that I asked [157]. --Rschen7754 19:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Apart from the PRODspamming of Missvain's articles, I'm more concerned that Kudpung doesn't actually understand what PROD is actually for (let's just be clear - "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." (i.e. the deletion is uncontroversial). This isn't a PROD. Nor is this. Or this. Or, indeed, this. Yet he PRODded all of those, created by Missvain, in the space of a few hours. Don't get me wrong - I'm not 100% convinced they're all completely notable, especially the last pair - but regardless they're certainly not PRODs and AfD would have been the the venue if indeed there was an issue. So that's either incompetence or harassment. If Kudpung isn't capable of understanding notabililty, he shouldn't be doing NPP. And given this issue and the one above, ArbCom might well want to take a look at what's he's doing. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

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

  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Regardless of your perception of this user's history, this user is a victim in this instance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  The user is still allegedly a vanished user in at least one of his accounts, and one who was granted exceptional consideration on promising never to edit again. Until he properly unvanishes he's way out of line. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That’s news to me. I believe the policy document you should read is Wikipedia:Clean start. FWIW, I generally refrain from responding or interacting with DuncanHill, as he shows a clear animosity to me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You took against me after I pointed out a false claim you made when reclaiming admin tools. You then took it off-wiki on a blog you had at the time. You have a log history of disruption, which you slide away from by retiring or vanishing, and then you reappear again and kick off the shit again. Your old talk pages are still deleted - which they only were as you invoked WP:VANISH and made certain claims about what you would do if they weren't. DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Arbcom is our only mechanism for the disciplining of rogue administrators and that is to where appeal should be made. Carrite (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

couldn't this just be resolved à la Newyorkbrad, asking Kudpung and Chris.sherlock to stay away from one another? There's a lot of unhealthy edits and history reported here. I really don't wish to go into details. I think Newyorkbrad's suggestion, as in so many cases, is exactly the right one. If it can be done without a stupid formal IBAN thingy, all the better. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I would need a reassurance that any stalking will stop, and I would need to know what Kudpung’s “research” uncovered (communicated to me in private), along with reassurance that it is not inappropriately disclosed. I would also need reassurance he knows how inappropriate that behaviour is and further undertakings he doesn’t continue this sort of behaviour in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't solve the fact that he has attempted to intimidate other editors. --Rschen7754 01:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is unambiguously inappropriate, and frankly I am surprised that Kudpung has done this. Chris' identity was not a secret, plenty of us know his history, and even if what he was doing was wrong (which I don't think it was), Kudpung's commentary is downright sinister. Guy (help!) 23:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• There have been personal attacks made on other editors too.[158] Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC).

I see that Kudpung has not edited since his last post to this thread. I hope that as soon as he next logs on, he will read this thread, appreciate the concerns that have been expressed, and respond accordingly. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reminds me of a strange, vaguely threatening message Kudpung left me last year (User_talk:Ajraddatz#Harassment) when we disagreed on something Signpost-related. If this is type of behaviour is continuing with other users going forward, perhaps some actions should be taken, starting with a warning and clear message that this is not an appropriate method of collaboration. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I resent it being suggested I should be available 24/7. For one thing I'm on a 12 - 16 hour time difference from the most of you. I will be emailling Newyorkbrad on this issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• You did the opposite of trying to disengage. You kept commenting about his "inappropriate behavior" over and over in that thread, as if you wanted him to 'repent' or something. I spent over an hour writing responses to your comments trying to defuse the situation. You eventually harangued him to the point that he snapped back. He responded vaguely, which was unwise; fine. The discussion was closed. Let it go. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, thank you for doing so. I did observe you mediating and your level headed ness was appreciated. For my part, I only highlighted that I didn’t think Kudpung was following the spirit of PROD and I didn’t feel it was reasonable to vaguely state an admin was misusing tools - when in fact that was not the case at any point. I do think I need to clarify that I never stated that at any point I ever saw Kudpung making inappropriate use of his admin privileges. I’m sure he does good admin work and seems to take clearing backlogs seriously. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've received and responded to Kudpung's email to me that he mentioned above. I'll leave it to him to post further, but I'm hopeful this will help resolve this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I asked arbcom to take a look at this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That was premature while this thread is still ongoing.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: This thread can't solve the underlying ADMINCOND issue --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This thread is unfair to the victim, who has had to repeatedly engage to defend themselves. I hope some sensible sort will come along and shut it down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, It would certainly make me uncomfortable if an administrator told me that they were investigating me and insinuated that they had something on me. Maybe Kudpung can avoid sanctions by just replying that they received the message and will avoid this type of behavior. Ahiroy (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure that a bunch of us have sometimes looked into an editor for a variety of reasons. If we uncover stuff that we feel warrants action, we compile the diffs and bring an appropriate case somewhere. If we don't and perhaps we didn't think we would because it was just for personal interest, we do our best to ensure whatever we uncovered doesn't affect the way we deal with the editor in a negative way. I don't think we can or should be attempt to regulate what people choose to do privately when they aren't planning to misuse it either here on Wikipedia or off-wikipedia. But I have no idea why any editor would think it a good idea to leave such a vague comment to another editor except as some sort of threat or attempt to intimidate and Kudpung has provided no other coherent explanation. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive threats

Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs)

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

Diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This fits the definition of WP:HARASSMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly, the editor has accused three editors of stalking that I know of, the two above and nableezy: [159] and [160]. As to why I would edit such an “obscure article”, perhaps I heard about it because I have lived in the same borough in the same city as the victim for decades and it's in all the local papers. Seriously, the editor should stop assuming those with whom he disagrees are stalking them. As for the rest of the above, it's about content and not behavior -- although it contains a lot of false claims. As for why I brought this to ANI; that should be obvious. It was the only way to stop him from continually threatening to bring it to ANI. Look, all I asked is that the editor be informed that this behavior is not acceptable. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've provided a summary of our interactions from my perspective, in response to the report that you filed. If you're going to say I've made a "false accusation" about you, then you should point out what it is. I would happily correct any mistake, but I've supported my summary with diffs and I don't believe I've made one. If you hadn't appeared to follow me to another page, which I politely asked you about first, and behaved disruptively there, as another editor noted, we wouldn't have had an issue in the first place. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you stop? I did not stalk you. SharabSalam did not stalk you. Nableezy did not stalk you. And you made a threat on my TP previous to this incident (in the diffs). And please realize that not agreeing with you is not being disruptive. Read Bishonen's warning. O3000 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't make declarations about what did or didn't transpire in unrelated interactions that had nothing to do with you. When an editor suddenly appears at other pages you've been editing to disagree following a disagreement at another page, that's a clear red flag anyone would address. You dismissed my justified suspicion about WP:STALK with no acknowledgement of how your behavior might've lead to that conclusion, and mere disagreement is clearly not what I'm talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just want to observe that the hyper-aggressiveness and hyper-personalization on display here are sadly characteristic of WE19920. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bishonen's expression of concern in the DS notice seems clear. I'm for imposing some sort of sanction on that, but will not act unilaterally. The question is whether this user is a net positive in post 1932 US politics, or whether they're too het up about it to edit collaboratively. I think they're to overheated, but then I don't know everything.-- Deepfriedokra 02:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  Warning that conduct could lead to a notice board discussion is not a threat. However, there seems to be an inability to discuss matter collaboratively, there seems a lack of WP:AGF, and there seems a problem with accusations.-- Deepfriedokra 02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  User makes accusations about others, but does not wish there own conduct discussed? Really?-- Deepfriedokra 02:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  Bishonen thinks saying "what a dishonest post" is a personal attack? Meh. --Pudeo (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't get notified about this discussion. I didn't receive O3000 ping. I simply went to O3000 talk page and found his reply. It is very important to clerify this because I will be accused of following Wikieditor's contributions!. I have been editing in these controversial murder, shooting cases. And just to make people aware, this case is very controversial because the teenager who is accused is African American and the girl who was killed is European American. And I don't think I should say that America is full of racism. Wikieditor19992 acts like if there is no person was aware of this article subject before him. So I found about the article, didn't even notice that Wikieditor19998 was there. I just noticed the tag at the article which says that there is a discussion to move the article. I clicked discuss and went to the end of the talk page. I said move per WP:BLPCRIME. After a while I got a message from Wikieditor19992 saying that I am following him because of Ilhan Omar dispute. And that is absolutely not true. Repeatedly assuming bad faith is considered personal attack and harassment per WP:AGF. I have seen this editor making the same accusation about Nableezy before.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, this is silly. I never threatened 03000 nor did anything to "stop his contributions." I did assume good faith with 03000 by politely asking whether he'd followed my edits. Besides the issues I raised above, which I believe are justified, I do not have a problem editing alongside 03000. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"I did assume good faith with 03000 by politely asking whether he'd followed my edits." I see. If it's this edit that you describe as a good-faith-assuming polite ask, it seems you have little sense for how your sarcasm comes across. Either that, or you're hoping people here have no sense for it. Yes, I did warn Wikieditor19920 in December about insulting people. Now I have warned them more strongly (mentioning the possibility of blocks) about pervasive hostility and snarliness, and told them they'll be blocked unless they dial it down. Also, that they'll be blocked if they post on Objective3000's page again. Feel free to let me know if anybody should see them disregarding this warning. Bishonen | talk 13:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: One of the complainants here has told another editor in an American politics related MfD: [161] How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!! Back when that happened, it was mentioned at AE etc. and nothing was thought of it. Now you are warning Wikieditor19992 for far, far less. It seems that there are two sets of standards at play. Different rules are applied for different editors depending on whether they follow the house POV. --Pudeo (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Busybodygate is soooo over. What you saw in May 2018, was the culmination of three editors following my edits on several articles, trying to annoy me by changing my talk page posts, and then finally, following me to my unlinked user subpage page to harass me by demanding that it be deleted. For your information, one of those editors is banned; one has been sanctioned in Arbcom cases; and one has been topic banned from American Politics. That speaks loudly to what precipitated my rare outburst far more than some silly conspiracy theory about a house POV. - MrX 🖋 14:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, I don’t think going back to a comment in a May 2018 MfD about a user subpage that was a draft of a complex, successful ARCA filing is useful. It would take a five page essay to explain. And it certainly isn’t an indicator of some WikiWide bias. O3000 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Although they already received a warning for the what a dishonest post mentioned above, I'd point out that this user has been extremely upfront about their low opinion of the editors they're in disputes with on Talk:Ilhan_Omar. Individually these wouldn't be a big deal, but they have been WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion with comments like these for weeks now despite being warned:

• [162] This is, yet again, another false insinuation that the criticism of her remarks was a minority or limited view. ... That would be an obvious BLP violation which neither I nor anyone here would agree to, so I understand why it makes a convenient strawman
• [163] Our concern is a balanced representation of the sources, not shielding the subject from controversy.
• [164] Don't be ridiculous. I said she reaffirmed her criticism regarding AIPAC.
• [165] There is simply too much reliable source material spread out over too many months for a reasonable editor to argue that the ant-semitic trope allegations is not a prominent and controversial part of her public profile.
• [166] There is a disturbing and consistent trend among exclude votes that I hope any admin reviewing this discussion will take note of. ... It is a terrible shame that this discussion has become so tainted with expressions of opinion about her remarks, about the subject herself, and with overwrought comparisons to other politicians that have little relevance here.
• [167] Further, I don't appreciate some of the tactics being used by editors opposing the content.
• [168] However, the kind of speculating and theorizing that you and SharabSalam are engaging in is exactly the type of behavior that is unproductive and forbidden from article talk pages. Note that both editors they're addressing are experienced and obviously know the policy.
• [169] SharabSalam, this is not a forum for you to discuss your personal views. You are expressing opinions that suggest an inability to edit neutrally
• [170] This is all pure opinion, by an editor, which should not and cannot taint this article.

There's also a lot more from before they were warned beyond the one line they were warned for (eg. [171], You already stepped over the line by sneakily trying to get the content out a few months back -- now you're rewording it in a way that is not true to what's reported), but I figured I should stop there. Editors shouldn't have to deal with this sort of thing. If Wikieditor19920 really thinks there are conduct issues on that page, they know where WP:AE and this page are and how to raise such concerns properly. --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible IP range block?

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

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

The edits have similar behaviors with reverts and edit summaries: [172] [173] [174] [175]

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

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

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

You literally called it vandalism in your previous edit: "Could anything be done in regards to curbing vandalism from the IP range?" If you want these IPs range blocked, you'll have to post evidence of disruption in the form of diffs. What I see so far is a content dispute, which you've mischaracterized as vandalism. Edit warring reports would best be resolved at WP:ANEW. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only thing that is clear about the above diffs is that you and Hunan201p have a disagreement about the article's content. The correct way to resolve this is to get other editors to share their opinions and work toward a consensus on the talk page. It would be incredibly premature to impose sanctions for POV pushing at this time, since there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus for either of your positions, nor evidence that this is a behavioral pattern persisting across multiple articles. However, both of you are pretty close to getting slapped with sanctions for edit warring. Since it seems extremely unlikely that you two will be able to convince each other directly, I would suggest stating your proposed content changes briefly and clearly on the talk page, and then going to work on something else while you wait for additional editors to comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I've been looking at Hunan201p (talk · contribs)'s editing history and talk page, and he seems to have a history of making contentious bold edits. Often he deletes information that is in his opinion "not well-sourced", before reaching a consensus with other users. He also seems to have an agenda of editing articles in order to favor Indo-European/Iranian origins for something, instead of Turkic or Mongolic. I would hope that Hunan201p (talk · contribs) adds tags like or before he wholesale deletes entire sentences and paragraphs for having "unreliable sources". I would agree that Hunan201p (talk · contribs)'s editing history is problematic. Instead of deleting, it would be more helpful and less contentious to add more tags, like , , or before deleting info. --Leppaberry-123 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

39.32.220.50

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

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

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

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

I've reverted and protected articles and blocked recent spamming IPs, but there seems to have been a lot of this from multiple IPs over a long period of time. Please be aware of this, so we can take appropriate action to stop it in future. -- The Anome (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

One for WP:VPT as well? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted it there as well. -- The Anome (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems like the sort of thing that should be revision deleted as well. Scammers can still use the old revisions to scam people. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Long term block evasion from Baltimore

Duane E. Tressler (talk · contribs) has evaded a block by Drmies for years. Latest IP is 169.156.4.36 (talk · contribs), and I'm having no luck getting a block this afternoon. I'm also asking that the library be contacted, if that's within admins' purview. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

IP CD63, is that why you are mass-deleting content? tedder (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tedder: CD63 knows what they're doing; please do as they request. Thank you. ——SN54129 21:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Serial Number 54129. Mr. Tressler is one of the most determined block evaders I've come across. Absolutely prolific at adding unsourced geography and lore, not to mention a fountain of personal commentary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

And years after Drmies explained we don't do it here, adds birth and death dates to every person mentioned in every article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

For a good sense of the full scope, read Timeline of Baltimore and check its edit history. A monument to unsourced lore and original research. I don't know where to even start to bring that to an acceptable state. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• tedder, yes, those edits probably look very drastic; look at my edits today and you'll see some similar ones. Duane could be a force for good but is not. They edit often from the public libraries and you'd think they'd have a wealth of sources for the local topics they edit, but really nothing that they do is sources. For every interesting and relevant factoid they add, there's a dozen edits with irrelevant and verbose detail, unnecessary dates and wikilinks, and long digressions. One of the IPs we looked at today, they'd been using that since at least 2014. I did in fact contact a librarian for the library system (just to give them a heads-up, in case patrons were complaining they couldn't edit Wikipedia), but of course those librarians can hardly be expected (legally, morally, and practically) to police their patrons' workstations so I don't really know what else we can do. I placed a rangeblock, and before I did so I looked at over a thousand edits: all Duane's. They are certainly prolific. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks CD63 and Drmies. That gives the context I was missing. tedder (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

See our conversation about this from early December [176]. And this sentence [177]. It merits some kind of recognition. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I happened to read the edits and I actually shouted at my screen "That's WRONG!" at a few of them. (I may or may not have some knowledge of Baltimore FYI). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Edit5001

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

---

Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Five days ago, this user was blocked for 60 hours by El_C for edit-warring. Since being unblocked:

1. their first edit to Illegal immigration to the United States was to continue an edit war; they subsequently violated 1RR but self-reverted after being notified
2. their first edit to Catholic Church and abortion was to continue an edit war, and most of their subsequent edits to the article have been to revert numerous other editors in violation of WP:BRD
3. their first edit to Anti-racism was a revert to restore uncited material
4. they engaged in blatant canvassing for which they have been warned by JzG [178] and Bishonen [179]; they have responded without acknowledging the warnings
5. they have repeatedly [180] [181] engaged in edit-warring at Unite the Right 2
6. they have engaged in edit-warring [182] [183] on Heartbeat bill
7. they have engaged in edit-warring [184] [185] on Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors

In isolation, none of these would be unusually problematic (none involve a violation of 3RR, for example), but the pattern of hyper-aggressive editing in contentious areas is undeniable. (This is not to get in to their totally uncollaborative and uncollegial talk-page style.) The earlier 60 hour block does not seem to have had any positive effect on their approach to editing, so I would like to request a discussion about additional/alternative options. --JBL (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

These are content disputes. I'm actively discussing the edits I'm making on the talk pages both before and after making them. I'm not "edit-warring" anymore than the few people changing what I edit are. The Illegal Immigration page was not an edit war, someone literally removed huge enormous sections of long established content without consensus and I restored them. The edit on Catholic Church and abortion was removal of an addition completely unrelated to what was previously under discussion. The other edit there was simply adjusting wording that hadn't previously been discussed - not an edit war. The Anti-racism article was once again someone removing entire sections without saying anything on the Talk page, so I restored it once in hopes they'd give better explanation. All the rest are not edit warring - I'm literally discussing them all on the talk page and being bold in my changes as Wikipedia policy says to try to do. The people I'm in content disputes with on most of those pages are actually far closer to edit-warring than I am, because they often either don't respond to me on the Talk page or make no justification for their changes at all. Edit5001 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

They additionally proposed on Talk:Nick Fuentes that the following are reliable sources: A brand-new conservative website with no identifiable editorial structure, an explicitly-pro-Trump and white nationalist blog, and this random New Zealand blog posted by a homophobic Christian extremist. I suggest that this user does not sufficiently understand content policies to work in a collaborative fashion in contentious areas; at minimum, an AP2 topic ban is warranted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not propose that they were reliable sources. I invited someone else to state what their problems with the sources were. I also did not attempt to add them to the article. Edit5001 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This reply demonstrates well one of the problems. Edit5001, if you do not understand that the WP:BURDEN is on you to use WP:RS and, when asked, to show that they meet our standards, then you should either (1) seek assistance from other editors or (2) not edit in sensitive areas like US politics. You cannot just offer up sources says asking "what's wrong with this one?". EvergreenFir (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: wow. (I hadn't checked the talk-page there because it's the only article they've edited recently where they haven't done any edit-warring.) --JBL (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• A topic ban from pages concerning politics, race, and abortion would give us a chance to find out if it's the subjects or the editor that's the problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. "Hyper-aggressive editing in contentious areas" matches what I've seen from this editor. I considered bringing this editor to this noticeboard earlier today. I concur, a topic ban gives us a chance to see if this editor can be constructive in less contentious areas, or if we simply need to block them indefinitely. I don't believe anything less (for example, WP:0RR) would be sufficient here. --Yamla (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

What this looks like is a group of people actively trying to get me banned for opposing their changes to certain political articles. As can be seen in the changes linked, I have followed Wikipedia's policies on revert limits, reverted myself when I saw I made a mistake, and have been active on the Talk pages of basically every article I've attempted to make what these guys are calling "contentious" edits on. Edit5001 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the overlap in article edits between your account and mine. Twelve years ago, I made one edit to Sexual ethics. I haven't checked, but it was probably to revert vandalism. That's the only overlap in articles, and I've got about 95,000 edits (to articles and other pages). I hope you aren't including me in your list, then, your list of people who oppose you on political grounds. Indeed, I'm concerned that you make this claim when there are significant non-politicial concerns with your editing. This is enough to make me support an indefinite block, but I strongly prefer a topic ban as the first option. --Yamla (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If we've only ever overlapped on one article, in which you didn't disagree with my edits, what on Earth even brought me to your attention enough to show up and agree with banning me moments after the ban proposal was made? Edit5001 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If only Yamla had included some explanatory text like "Hyper-aggressive editing in contentious areas" matches what I've seen from this editor in their comment so that you could understand what they view as problematic! --JBL (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking him how I came to his attention in the first place, not to mention why here's here just moments after this proposal was made. Edit5001 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm an admin, I monitor this and WP:AN (along with more than 6380 other pages). Your edits first came to my attention in December 2019, after you had been blocked and you requested an unblock. This is because my main activity on Wikipedia is monitoring Category:Requests for unblock. --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from AP2, abortion and race. The canvassing was particularly egregious: he went over 1RR at Illegal immigration to the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), self-reverted with a comment Apparently I went over 1RR with this, but other editors are welcome to re-add the information for me if they agree with it and then WP:CANVASSed one editor likely to share his POV Your input is requested on changes to the Illegal Immigration in the United States page, clearly with the intent of getting that user to make the change. That follows on from the block on 4 December for placing conditions on a self-revert after a previous 1RR violation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400 § User:Edit5001 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: missing DS alert added, 24 hours). There's a mountain of tendentious editing, edit warring and questionably competent assertions of CNN's news being as biased and inaccurate as that of Fox based on unreliable right wing websites. This editor is a drain on everyone. Guy (help!) 22:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that all these people (many of whom I've been in past content disputes with) are all magically showing up at the same time to chime in on favor of banning me. This couldn't be more politically motivated against an editor trying to bring some semblance of balance to political articles. I think this behavior is disgusting. Edit5001 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe if you fucking listened to people, you might get it through your skull how policy opposes the changes you've been trying to make. As for politics, it doesn't take left-wing politics to oppose (supposedly civilly) pushing a "both sides" approach to articles on white supremacist conspiracy theories and attacks, all it takes is not being a white supremacist (or white supremacist enabler, if that's really any different). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I made a proposal to include more information about demographic changes in that article. When I was told and understood that would technically be WP:SYNTHESIS, I dropped it. I'm amazed you can say I don't listen when I literally haven't made changes to that article in weeks. Edit5001 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit5001, you "forgot" the edit warring. Example: removing the identification of a group pushing a heartbeat bill as a hate group (basically anti-abortion terrorists). That's relevant in context. You have a problem with m:MPOV. And competence. Guy (help!) 23:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I made a single revert to what you first reverted on me. Also, that inclusion to me seems to be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS because none of the sources in relation to Heartbeat bills stated that they were a "hate group". That extra inclusion was added by editors as original research to make an anti-abortion group look bad. Also, as has been well documented with the SPLC, they label many groups as hate groups who have no connection to violence whatsoever, so I find your use of the word "terrorist" here bizarre. Edit5001 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The usual name for "making a revert to someone who reverted me" is "edit-warring". --JBL (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have stuck to 3RR and 1RR and reverted myself when I went over them. I have repeatedly sought consensus on Talk pages. I have repeatedly taken other people's voices into account and sought compromise. A good portion of the people I've reverted did not even respond to me on the talk page. On the Anti-racism article, I reverted one person who reverted something I didn't even have a part in working on. But you still call that an "edit war". Edit5001 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit5001, this is an admin noticeboard. I'm an admin. Anything else? Guy (help!) 23:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Tban as proposed. Jumping straight back into these issues with both feet after their block, reinstating challenged unsourced content, canvassing to encourage others to edit war on their behalf, and now casting aspersions at everyone else on this thread - doesn't inspire confidence that they can contribute collaboratively in these areas. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic bans per JzG, probably en route to a WP:NOTHERE indef. Miniapolis 00:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Ugh. "Also, as has been well documented with the SPLC, they label many groups as hate groups who have no connection to violence whatsoever" is a nice illustration of the IDHT problem here: "hate" and "violence" are different words, and not all hate groups incite violence. It also indicates what this user is doing here. They're called to ANI to defend their behavior, and use the opportunity to try and push their particular POV. The problems signaled by other editors are enough for me to support an indef-block. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Between that and their refusal to deny the white genocide conspiracy theory, I'm actually more in favor of an indef nothere block than I am for the topic ban I proposed. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am aware most recently of this editor from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tyciol/Archive#20_December_2019. In reviewing a few of this editor's activities, it seems that there are some fundamental problems in understanding Wikipedia's policies and standards expected of its editors. Above in this section, Edit5001 demonstrates a lack of understanding about WP:BURDEN and WP:RS. This is demonstrated here as well. In this edit, Edit5001 removed sourced material with the explanation that it was SYNTH. However, the source unambiguously and directly supports the text. Edit5001 has made inflammatory statements and demonstrated a desire to argue about topics on talk pages (WP:BLUDGEON, WP:NOTFORUM) ([186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192]). Edit5001 has racked up many warnings on their user talk page in their short tenure here.

I would support topic bans given this overall pattern of behavior with the hope that (s)he gains more competence in editing, reduces argumentative talk page behaviors, and demonstrates to the community their willingness and interest in building an encyclopedia (and not just arguing about pet topics). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at the Illegal Immigration in the United States page? Someone removed over 10,000 characters of the article that had been there for months, without discussion on the Talk page, and I simply reversed it. How is that a violation of any policy on my part? Edit5001 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not your one revert on one page. But in that instance, the issue/policy you violated was WP:1RR. I am ambivalent on the removal (WP:TNT) approach, but if you had concerns about it, bringing them to this noticeboard, starting an RFC, etc. all would have been appropriate responses. That a block of text is missing (or added) for a day is not an emergency. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, plus the direct solicitation of another user to make the edit after he self-reverted. Guy (help!) 07:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing in this conversation or their ongoing editing suggests that clue is being acquired. It looks like either an indefinite block or topic bans will be necessary to control the disruption, although it is a bit odd to take an editor and topic-ban them from every single topic on which they have ever edited in the hope that they improve. --JBL (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic bans on American politics, abortion, and race issues, all broadly construed. It is clear this user intends to disrupt these areas if they don't get their way, and that lack of collaborative attitude is unhelpful in areas that are all already contentious. Oppose blocking at this time per WP:ROPE. Lets see if they can work well with others in non-contentious areas. --Jayron32 12:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Tbans per Jayron32. After a sixty hour block, the editor came right back to the controversial articles. The block apparently didn't work. I don't think we need another block yet, but a Tban is quite necessary. Ahiroy (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic bans per Jayron32. Something needs to be done about new(?) editors joining Wikipedia, creating user pages with a few words, then jumping straight into the most controversial subjects with the single purpose of inserting their POV. Arbcom has reinforced] that edit warring is unacceptable in this topic area and that "articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources". I have also observed Edit5001's edits on CNN [193][194] and they do not leave me with the impression that Edit5001 listens to advice, accepts our content policies, or cares about improving the encyclopedia in general. - MrX 🖋 14:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. User Edit5001 does POV-push on a variety of issues, including even climate change. Consider this edit. In the edit summary Edit5001 accuses other contributors of "lying", but the diff speaks for itself. 1st change in the diff. The claim by Dobbs was indeed a falsehood because it was made receently (not in 1970s), and the claim was described as promotion of falsehoods in the cited source. 2nd change. No, 20% is not 1/3. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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

A lot of weird edits by Deedee123123123

• Deedee123123123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person is leaving a lot of weird edits. I fixed a few of them. Notice posted on their talk page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: Could you be a bit more detailed in terms of the problem(s) you are seeing,, maybe with some diffs and which WP:PAG, if any, you see being violated? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The pattern seems to be edits to info boxes, short titles, changing dates, just about every edit they make is weird. Not one constructive edit! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (ec) I reviewed the rest of their edits and fixed a couple more. They've now been almost universally reverted (one question (Talk:Masked Singer#Title) is pending for other editors, where they may have gotten something right). Many of the edits were wrong and self-reverted quickly, as though they were editing tests, though they were obviously/intentionally wrong and would be a problem if they had not been reverted (e.g. Special:Diff/908140651). This one was wrong for 5+ months until I fixed it. Not a big deal, really, but they haven't responded to template warnings on talk and don't seem to be able to contribute anything useful. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Could this be a sockpuppet of User:DawnoftheDeeDeeDee? aboideau^talk 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

JMyrleFuller pattern of unsourced and WP:CBALL edits

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

Repeated addition of unsourced content and WP:CBALL edits. [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203] Multiple warnings on talk page to stop disruptive edits. This pattern of behavior has been exhibited over several years despite multiple warnings to stop. User continues to make multiple unsourced edits per day, even admitting on own talk page that he is editing without including WP:V sources. [204], 02:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If you examine my entire edit history, you will note that the vast majority of my edits indeed include sources, and none have been intended to be disruptive. Furthermore, I have had multiple scuffles with my accuser over some edits even when I include sources, and many of the accusations of WP:CBALL are in fact not WP:CBALL, a point I have mentioned multiple times. The accuser's behavior is bordering on harassment, especially since I have not engaged with the accuser on anything in months (his accusation that I am "editing without including WP:V sources" comes from a conversation to which he was never even a party on an article that, to the best of my knowledge, he doesn't even edit). There are certain articles I won't even touch anymore because I know the accuser will revert them. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And furthermore, the vast majority of the edits I make that are unsourced are simply rephrasings, trimmings to cut excess detail and copy-editing with no new material. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has made multiple edits today adding unsourced content ([205], [206], adding unsourced draft rules/unsourced detail that someting "had never been attempted", [207]) and has included personal comments in WP:COMMENT text ([208], [209]). This user continues to make unsourced edits after many years of warnings to stop the disruptive behavior. This is a long-term pattern of behavior that is unlikely to stop without admin intervention. AldezD (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It is the accuser who requires administrator intervention because said person is the only person who has shown any persistent pattern of objection to my editing. Just minutes ago, he reverted an edit where I removed a small piece of unsourced content the accuser would have not known about had he not been stalking my contribution page. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I will also note that whenever called out on his behavior by other users, the accuser simply blanks his talk page without discussion. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit by me removed again your own unsourced ("since AccuWeather no longer promotes it") WP:OPINION WP:CBALL ("we don't know if it is ever going to be defunct") information placed in a MOS:COMMENT that you had already edited a second time (" I wouldn't say that it's soon to be defunct, since no one has any idea if it will ever be shut down"). This user continues to edit disruptively and will continue without administrator intervention. AldezD (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that you understand what the meaning of "disruptive" is. That comment was an explanation as to why it was wrong to use that word when no such source supported it and why my choice of word was more appropriate. If you find that disruptive, I'm afraid your standards are impossibly difficult. Are there times where I may resort to making an unsourced edit? Yes, but usually that is only when a change in the facts is made so quietly and unnoticed that it is difficult to cite a hard source as to when or how it happened. In such cases, I do everything in my power to try and prove that what I type is true. You are making it sound as if I'm running around Wikipedia vandalizing things. Certainly not! J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And administrators, can we please have someone resolve this dispute in short order? I really have no interest in bickering on the Internet. It's been years already with this guy and I'd like a resolution, please. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I'm not an admin, but whatever else, I think part of the resolution has to be that you stop being so loose in adding unsourced content. In particular following the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that says

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

Even if you try to argue in some of the cases it was reasonable to think it was unlikely to be challenged, I do not understand how an experienced editor can think it's acceptable to change sourced info so it no longer matches the source as you did here [210] [211]. Find a new source or at least remove the existing source or tag it to indicate it doesn't match the source. Note that although the current version of the source does include a new figure, your edit summaries strongly suggests that it did not at the time and indeed it did not even 4 days later [212]. You should never assume a source is going to be updated (and frankly if that source is regularly updated we should be relying on archived versions anyway). And if you are going to create a problem for others to fix by adding unsourced content, you should let them know you are doing so by not misleading them into thinking the content is sourced, when it is not and as in fact the source doesn't match the content. (It's no good for readers either.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 16:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: That's a fair enough criticism. There are times where I have edited first and added the sources later. I can easily work to avoid that in the future. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

IP making bad edits

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#IP making bad edits. It appears this editor is back today making more well-intentioned edits. Twice they have changed {{infobox person}} to {{infobox writer}} which in itself is OK, but they have not fixed incompatible parameters. Once that have made the same incorrect edit to |notableworks=. Today, it is 2600:1700:C970:1560:BD89:EFBC:5D40:33C6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MB 04:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User forcing edits through

The user 37.228.244.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is forcing their edits through on the Mechwarrior 2 article, more specifically they're trying to insert links to a fansite and a discord site, despite being told that these are not appropriate per WP:ELNO. Eik Corell (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP made the actually-correct point that the other external links there were rather comparable - as those other links have *also* been removed now, we shall see if the disagreement goes away. If not, the IP has been adequately warned for spam links, and will be blocked. ~ mazca ^talk 20:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The only communication with this editor before starting this discussion appears to have been a few words in a couple of edit summaries, with nothing on the article talk page or the user talk page, so "despite being told that these are not appropriate per WP:ELNO" seems to be stretching the truth a bit. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I guess I'm in the habit of assuming people look at edit summaries/histories, which may not be the case with new users. Regardless, the user has replied on to messages on their talk page so I'll take it there. Eik Corell (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on UK far-right politics

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

---

• Graham Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Patrick Harrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Solidarity – The Union for British Workers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Liberal Party (UK, 1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been edit-warring across these four articles for the last month at least, maybe longer. It consists of removing sources and sourced content which is uncomplimentary to these political groups, in describing them as far-right. I can see no plausible challenge to that content. There has been some talk: discussion, but I harldy see this as serious: Talk:Solidarity – The Union for British Workers#Formed by the BNP? Talk:National Liberal Party (UK, 1999)#"Far Right" designation

It has mostly come from a number of morphing IPs, Sky in Edinburgh, 2a02:c7f:8c7a:e100:*:*:*:* I recently requested protection for these articles and once that was applied an old (2012) account immediately came back to life, Thoughtcrime64 (talk · contribs). There may be a socking issue here, for although switching from an IP to a registered account is permissible and to be encouraged, reactivating a 6-year dormant account to bypass autoconfirmed or confirmed access protection is WP:SOCKing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, not necessarily socking, the user may just have had no real incentive to dig their account details before. It's pretty obviously the same person given the editing focus. I don't think that's actionable, sorry.

The tendentious editing is much more of an issue. I gave them level 3 disruption and 3RR warnings, and if the contested edit at National Liberal Party (UK, 1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeated I would say that justifies a block under the "limit not an entitlement" provision of 3RR. Guy (help!) 20:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP - 99.89.95.152

IP is proving disruptive now. They've had warnings from others, and it's now clear they don't intend to assist in working with Wikipedia. GUtt01 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just trying to help by adding some information is all. The only problems was that I wasn't adding any sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.95.152 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unreferenced content by unresponsive User:Gca.345

Gca.345 has received five warnings over the course of the last month for adding unreferenced information or failing to change references when updating information: 18 December, 26 December, 4 January, later 4 January, 04:45, 8 January. The user has only responded to the second warning on 26 December, asserting that the material came from a reliable source but missing the point about actually citing it.

There are dozens of such edits; here are some recent examples:

1. 04:09, 8 January at Cayman Islands
2. 04:07, 8 January at George Town, Cayman Islands
3. 11:34, 6 January at George Town, Cayman Islands
4. 05:15, 6 January at Share taxi
5. 07:30, 4 January at England
6. 00:58, 4 January at Demographics of the Cayman Islands
7. 02:50, 31 December at Bodden Town (village)
8. 05:38, 30 December at Cayman Islands
9. 05:17, 30 December at Demographics of the Cayman Islands

Despite the warnings and continued attempts at communication, the user continues to add unreferenced demographics information (18:22, 8 January). Can someone assist here? These are good faith edits, but these talk page warnings are not going through. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: I suppose it took an ANI notice after the several warnings for the user to engage in communication. Hopefully this will no longer be an issue. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Dalhoa repeatedly makes unsupported edit and reverts with little willingness to discuss.

I apologize if this message is excessively long. I am unsure how much detail to include and I hope to explain everything adequately. Recently USER:Dalhoa has made an edit to the Human page involving an extrapolation that seemed unsupported by the source they added (and in which they removed statements supported by several refs), which I reverted with detailed explanations. They they reverted me, ignoring my edit notes (I left several edit notes with explanations) and simply (in two reversions) claiming that my edit was "POV" without explanation (I had explained why it was not). I engaged them in a discussion (first posting on their Talk page and then moving the discussion to the article's Talk page), and though they made a few replies to which I responded, they have ignored my latest responses and simply reinstated their edit without responding to my responses or attemting to reach consensus (and the responses they did give did not seem to address the issues raised). In reverting their latest edit on the Human page, I believe I may have broken the 3 revert rule (and will self revert while/until this issue is resolved if that is that is what Wikipedia policies require) but I did so because they seemingly insisted on pushing their edit after refusing to listen and refusing to continue the discussion to reach consensus. This editor has seemingly shown a refusal to listen in this and other recent exchanges and has recently shown pattern of inaccurately representing sources (along with a persistent tendency toward hostility and incivility in discussions and a failure or refusal to listen). Here is the edit history of the Human article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&action=history and the incomplete discussion in that Article's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human#Behavioral_modernity

Here is a recent exchange I had with them in which they persistently engaged in a uncivil manner (without making clear what their dispute was despite) and seemingly refused to listen and inaccurately characterized statements made by me while making accusations (despite my not engaging in said behavior, and my requesting them to be civil repeatedly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#recent_changes Another instance of persistent incivility (my first exchange with them) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession

And here is an instance in which they ignored my request for discussion entirely regarding an edit which seemed to me to be an instance of WP:OR or WP:synthesis (though I did not persist in reverting them and left their edit as it currently is): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homo_sapiens#Recent_edits

In my exchanges with this user, they have shown a tendency to make accusations (involving misinterpretations/mischaracterizations of my statements and other actions as well as personal aspersions of my motives and aggressive and insistent accusations and assumptions of bad faith) which then take time for me to address (and lead to long exchanges that make little to no progress - into which they seem to bring an unwarranted combativeness and hostility). I am not sure how to proceed, as discussion does not seem to have worked. I hope I have not responded inappropriately in my dealings with them or here.

Any help/attention in resolving this issue is appreciated. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit: I have self-reverted/reverted my most recent reversion (which appears to have violated the 3-revert rule) of Dalhoa's most recent edit (while the issue is addressed here/while waiting for the issue to be addressed here). Skllagyook (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Iwinagain66

Has so far made 4 edits

[[213]] I just told them this was a minor edit in case it was a mistake.

[[214]] another user issues them a warning.

[[215]] I issues them a warning.

[[216]]

Its clear from the above they are just here to have a laugh (the user name is also a bit of a clue), and not to build an encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

And this as I was filling this [[217]], clearly needs a ban now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the user as VOA. In the future, use standard escalating warnings and then report the user to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:MioAkiyama26

MioAkiyama26 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly warned about changing climate data in articles that is properly referenced with data lacking any sourcing, see the talk page. To no avail. The exact same behavior this user was warned for continued again today, see here. Looking at the other contributions of this user reveals a consistent pattern of changing referenced info. A block would be in order... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

As this particular pattern of unsourced climate-data-changing has been going on slowly for months and years, I've blocked the user indefinitely as any shorter block would seem a little pointless given the gaps between editing. The lack of response to the many previous problems seems to indicate someone generally not helping. ~ mazca ^talk 19:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

GPRamirez5

This is a thread merely based on about actions that I consider to be consistent incivility, disrespect and mockery of GPRamirez5 against me, as well as the last personal attack in this noticeboard.

There's currently a thread opened in the noticeboard about my actions, and this thread is opened without prejudice of the discussion above.

My interactions with GPRamirez5 have been relatively few, but regretabally, rocky regardless to say the least. If I'm not mistaken, our first encounter was in the Crisis in Venezuela article. I believe that the first incivil edit summary directed to me that I can find was "Did you even read the source? Good lord". There are several of their comments in the talk page that could be considered incivil as well:

• "How do you have the temerity to claim "Everything in this section is addressed," when you admit you haven't read the section, Sandy Georgia? And when Weisbrot's work is published by a university press, yes it is more reliable than your WP:BREAKINGNEWS tabloid trash" 24 March 2019 (edit summary: "TLDR FOH". I really hope it meant something else other than "Too long, didn't read, fuck outta here")
• "A total whitewash, not surprising coming from a slimy outfit funded by the Saudis and other heinous interests." 28 March 2019 (edit summary: "Think tank of arms dealers and head choppers")

We encountered each other again in the Max Blumenthal article and the 3RR noticeboard, where a discussion was started about TheTimesAreAChanging and afterwards archived without resolution. On both cases, we disagreed with the changes again. Before getting involved in the article or its talk page, SandyGeorgia, TheTimesAreAChanging and GPRamirez5 had a discussion where GPRamirez5 continued with personalization of discussions, reason which they were explicitily called out for it. Some examples are the following:

• 26 February 2019 ("No Telesur, but plenty of bloviating")
• 10 March 2019 ("Wow, the fucking nerve")
• 10 March 2019 ("FOH" again)
• "Forgive me my liege! That wasn't you, that was ZiaLater who repeatedly reinserted the falsehood" 13 March 2019 ("prostrate begging for your absolution")

• 21 March 2019 ("defending standards and documenting misconduct is not a 'personal attack'")

TheTimesAreAChanging, GPRamirez5 and I continued discussing in a separate section about a different dispute, where even though GPRamirez5 didn't participate very much, their behavior continued, both in their comments and their edit summaries:

• "(...) it doesn't belong here." 17 April 2019 ("Show me the Blumenthal")

I started a thread on the Dispute resolution noticeboard on 21 April 2019 and notified both users to attempt to find a solution to the dispute. Still, the thread was closed because no answer was given after 72 hours, even though I asked them to participate. The apparent lack of interest to cooperate, along with the antagonizing responses, were incredibly frustrating. GPRamirez5 continued with the personalization in the remaining responses:

• "Your grasping use of sourcing and leaps of logic cannot help." 24 April 2019
• "And I'll repeat: WP:ONUS." (responding to a lengthy comment of mine) 25 April 2019 ("Consensus exists to exclude")

The next time that GPRamirez5 and I interacted with each other was once again in the Crisis in Venezuela article talk page. Their comments were just as snarky as in the past:

• "Request denied. The US is an actor in Venezuela, and much mainstream commentary references US policies and politics." 4 June 2019
• "As if this page were currently free of strawman fallacies lol..." 4 June 2019

The same day I left a message in GPRamirez5's talk page asking them to refrain from accusations and the personalization in comments:

Since we have found ourselves in common articles in the past, I prefer to write a message directly. In the past you have not assumed good faith from my part, made accusations against me and have replied with sarcasm and irony, to put it midly; from what I gather, this is not the first time this has been pointed out. Furthermore, I have previously looked forward seeking a solution to previous disagreements, to which I have not received responses, and along with the actions that I have mentioned before, this has meant that the exchanges so far have been unhelpful in looking for agreements. For these reasons, and before there are further discussions, I'm asking you to please refrain from this in the future. Best regards, --Jamez42 (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

GPRamirez5 disregarded the message by simply deleted the message nine minutes afterwards without providing an edit summary. I replied writing "Note taken". GPRamirez5 responded by removing several unwanted messages, mostly from the Feedback request service, including my message. To add insult to injury, they wrote "Cleaning out the trash" as edit summary.

GPRamirez5 started a RfC on 1 July 2019 in the United States involvement in regime change article talk page about the inclusion of a section about Venezuela. At one point, I felt that GPRamirez5 said a whataboutism argument and I commented on it. GPRamirez5 replied saying that another user and me were the ones engaging in whataboutism with the edit summary "Pot meets kettle". I responded warning that I would start a complaint in the admin's noticeboard if personal attacks continued. The next edit summary was "Double standards all the way down"

There wasn't much interaction afterwards, with possibly two reverts in Max Blumenthal's article.[218][219][220] on October. This was until 31 December, when they intervened and reverted in a current dispute in the United States involvement in regime change article.

For six months, we didn't interact or find each other in articles talk pages. Despite this, GPRamirez5 participated in a thread about me that was opened in this noticeboard, outright asking for a topic ban against me about Venezuelan politics articles:

Topic Ban at least A transparently disruptive editor who has no regard for consensus when it goes against his anti-Maduro bias.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This comment happens after nearly no interaction with me for months. GPRamirez5 did not participate in any discussions regarding the dispute that was the reason to start the thread, and has not either specified or provided any diffs or details about this accusation. After the long term abuse described above, I have serious doubts that his vote was casted in good faith and I can only consider these accusations as a personal attack.

• Interaction timeline tool

I didn't want to start a complaint on the noticeboard because we didn't interact further and prevent further inflammation. The only reason why I finally decided to open it is because of the opened discussion above, and since the complaint greatly affects my activity in Wikipedia I felt that it was important to document all of this behavior. I don't know about which intervention could administrators take to help on the matter, but I felt that at the very least this should be weighted when closing the aforementioned discussion. Regards and many thanks beforehand. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

50.239.116.194

This IP user has been adding "references" to sister city info in many US cities like Palmer, Alaska. I requested they slow down and review WP:CITE and WP:MOS, but are unresponsive. I don't think it's vandalism, but they might be promoting the organization they're linking to (a non-profit org.) in the reference. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)