Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027

Kavin Mudaliar

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

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

User:Mclarenfan17

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

The mentioned user keeps changing the outlook of 2020 World Rally Championship#Entries to his own liking. This is going on for atleast one month. We've had a system for every previous season article. Most of all, we had a discussion, where nobody supported him (all participants were against this new format), but Mclarenfan17 still editwars to keep his own preferred version. I'm making this report, because I can not see the good faith in these edits. Examples of the edits (just enough not to break 3RR): [3] [4] [5] + 3 during the last 24h [6] [7] [8]. So is a consensus something to respect or not? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the content-related help. But I started this topic because the behaviour of the mentioned user - ignoring consensus and editwarring into his own preferred version. I'm not convinced the user will stop this kind of behaviour. His previous user Prisonermonkeys was blocked several times for editwarring, I feel the only thing he is learned, is not to break 3RR (more than 3 reverts in 24h) and remove "undid revision..." from edit summaries. I mean, previous dispute was with not showing the possibility that the defending champion can choose number 1 for his car number (per the rules), I insisted TBA (no direct source for the numbers) & started a discussion here, later moved it here to get more feedback. These are the reverts Mclarenfan17 made: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] He reverted different users 21 times to a version with only #8 until left it alone. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't really get the accusation you made. The content added to Wikipedia needs direct sources, not the other way around. The content shouldn't be wrong by adding more than sources actually write. I was challenging your added content, not you challenging me. While you're trying to boomerang this somehow, you are confusing something by providing 26 December talk, while the reverts I listed happened between 31 October and 21 November. So the issue did not come up just 2 days ago but was resolved on 21 November by you not reverting (examples [30] [31] [32]) the note that was suggested in the discussion. The note is now there from 21 November. The rule that defending champion can choose number one, is in the sporting regulations and you know it. I tryed adding the sporting regulations as a source on 3 November, which you reverted. "The issue" with other numbers was raised in 22 November here by two more users, Tvx1 and SSSB. I quote: Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that. - In any of the sources you provided, it was never mentioned that they can keep the same number year on year, nor was explained what the "career number" means. In the rules, they are still "seasonal numbers". Sorry for discussing content here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That is original research.

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

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

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

For What It's Worth

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

User:SinclairCEO

Maybe this should have gone to AIV, but it's a slightly complicated. I think Special:Contributions/SinclairCEO needs a block. While I have no idea if any of this is true [33], their first edit was this [34] which I strongly suspect is not true. Someone has been trying to add such nonsense for a few months now [35] [36] [37] [38]. The last edit is particularly interesting since it comes from Special:Contributions/Marshall77, who managed to get themselves blocked after adding material to that article (Doug Chapman (American football)) that was rev-deleted. It also highlights another reason for a block, assuming SinclairCEO doesn't know what to do to edit the article, they may go inactive since the article has been semi-protected. But the history with Marshall77 suggests it will be re-activated once protection expires. BTW, while I assume looking at the rev-deleted material will probably be enough to prove whoever is behind this is up to no good, see [39] [40] if there are any doubts. Incidentally, I think we can be sure that the editor is trying to imply some connection with Sinclair Broadcast Group which doesn't exist so it's also a username violation. Yes, I'm sure they'll be back, but with more blocks, it will hopefully be easier to deal with e.g. simply reported to AIV. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Editor making legal threats

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:HunterTubeHD85960

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another disruptive account, while AIV is locked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoffemerick account

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

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

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

Olympics ip editor

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

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

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

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

Moved from WP:AIV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What this article could use is sources, rather than fights over a fictional race of animals on a kid's show that a five year-old and a 40 year-old parent will never care to learn the specifics about. I see plenty of sources literally nobody outside of the kidvid cruft community cares about regarding episode premiere ratings...I see nothing about the actual show's characters, but I see lots of long writing about each character that would make for a good lullaby (they all need severe editing). This has all the makings of a lame edit war. Nate • (chatter) 01:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Page blanking by User:Wisegrandaugher

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new user keeps blanking and renaming a page titled Finkenberg's Sons Furniture. As a different user, User:New York Historian 1870, had removed an AfD tag and blanked the page, I'm at two reversions and I don't want to edit war by hitting three reverts. Can somebody look into this situation to see what's going on? The user also moved the page to Administrator please delete this article. Hog Farm (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know what's going on either. But I speedy deleted the redirect as a test page, moved the article back, and move-protected it. I also left a note on Wisegrandaugher's talk page that I hope will resolve some of her concerns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Austhistory99

The author user:Austhistory99 (self declared COI) of this hatchet job on author Bruce Pascoe has been contributing to both his bio article and the article for his book Dark Emu - considering the tone of his website Dark Emu Exposed, I believe this goes beyond a COI. Austhistory99 has now published a copy of Pascoe's book the articles talk page, the book is popular and contemporary, currently in publication and published under copyright - offering the text in full is a blatant copyright violation. Given the editors self admitted authorship of an attack page that describes the articles subject as "Chairman Pascoe" and "Emperor Pascoe" among other slurs and their recent copyright violation/disregard for the subjects intellectual property. I believe this editor has a demonstrable and serious issue with the articles subject and should be topic banned from all articles relating to Bruce Pascoe. Bacondrum (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever else, I agree that linking to the full book is a violation of WP:COPYVIOEL. While WP:REX and other methods can be used to exchange resources to help editors, a general link to the full book in the talk page is way too far. The editor should be blocked if they do this again. Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I want to point out that the copyright that was violated regarding Dark Emu belongs to the BLP article's subject Bruce Pascoe making this a particularly troubling case of copyright violation. Considering the editor runs a page dedicated to defaming Pascoe and discrediting his book, it seems inconceivable that he did not know it was a copyright violation. Bacondrum (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User:TM2042

Repeat vandalism by TM2042 on Blair Cottrell repeatedly adding unfounded/uncited claims including accusations of (Redacted). Blatant vandalism. Bacondrum (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. But please read the large banner that appears whenever you edit this page: If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Coloursred1 and edits in tennis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:AN

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

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

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

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

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

That's not counting the aggression [41]. And combined with their refactoring [42], [43] [44] of both the OP's comment and my response to it—!!! NOTHERE, anyone...? ——SN54129 14:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user without an interest in providing sources

• VitalSignal (talk · contribs)

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

• And an apparent minor copyright violation that may require rev/deletion [45]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've done the revision deletion and another admin has issued a short block for disruptive editing. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • My thanks to you both. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
      • PS I've added some helpful links to the user talk page using the welcome-laws template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Pmoore2222 COI

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

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

InedibleHulk's signature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

Signature example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General signature timestamp guideline change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA

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

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

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

98.111.189.131

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

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

Apparent legal threat by IP

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

Legal threat after ANI-based block

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

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

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

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

Editor won't delete company page

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, I find it interesting that the page was originally created by User:Shar1R [46], an editor who's main other contributions seem to have been creating an article on another Israeli company GigaSpaces [47] and one of their products Cloudify [48], and some Israeli band Nikmat HaTraktor [49]. Suffice it to say, this wouldn't be the first time some company had once thought it a good idea to pay for an article to be written about them only to later come to regret it. Although if this was what happened here, I don't really see anything that bad about the article, regardless of whether the info in it is completely up to date with what the company does now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Persistent dispute at Croatian Air Force

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

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

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

Oversight at Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Tomis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undiscussed changes to ~1,500 pages using AWB

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

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

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

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

Off-topic forum

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

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

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

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

Weeb Dingle pretending to be new with a different account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The editor seemed to imply they were taking this to ANI [50], but then didn't. I've told them that at a minimum, they need to ensure the connection between the accounts is clearly declared. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

User:Flyer22 Reborn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Nkofa, why did you lie on your user page and say, This is my first day here? And why did you say, I am not certain what I am doing yet, when you are an experienced editor with over 4,400 edits? [51]
• I think this report about Flyer22 Reborn is retaliatory. It is, of course, totally unsupported and subjective. Weeb Dingle's habit is to leave rants on talk pages, with no reference to sources and hardly any to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, expounding their personal opinions about how an article should be written. At sexuality topics, Flyer22 Reborn is usually one of the first to respond (to whoever starts a discussion). In these cases other editors often show up as well, and - very importantly - they likewise show no support for Weeb Dingle's ideas. I am sure that in every case, it would turn out that Flyer22 Reborn had edited the article and/or commented on its talk page long before Weeb Dingle ever showed up, hence she was already watching it. So, that's not following or hounding.
• Here are the cases I have dealt with Weeb Dingle; in these you can see clearly the pattern I outlined above: [52][53][54][55]
• The problem is Weeb Dingle, and this is further confirmed by the previous times this user has been taken to ANI by Flyer22 Reborn and Pepperbeast. [56][57] In the first, Tomwsulcer commented and Doc James closed it; in the second, Black Kite closed it. Doug Weller was also there. Weeb Dingle has also received warnings on their talk page [58][59][60][61] from Toddst1, Doc James, Black Kite, and Flyer22 Reborn.
• Now this user is asking to edit however they want without interference? I don't think so. It makes no sense that they should show up at articles Flyer22 Reborn is already at and ask her to refrain from commenting on this user's ideas when there is no evidence of hounding. And now they say they would happily take up the Weeb Dingle account again given the opportunity?
• I suggest the admins do the following: (1) Block indefinitely the Weeb Dingle account to prevent any further evasion of scrutiny by switching back should the password be 'remembered'. Alternatively, if there is some way to send Nkofa the Weeb Dingle password, Nkofa could be blocked instead and they could be told to stick to the original, primary account. Assuming the former, (2) Require Nkofa to state clearly on their user page they formerly edited under Weeb Dingle, and to edit the Weeb Dingle user page to state that this person is now editing under Nkofa. (3) Warn this user strongly about their attempting to evade scrutiny, about misuse of talk pages, and about their failure to treat Wikipedia as a collaborative environment. Note that I would support even stronger sanctions should others feel they are appropriate. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Weeb Dingle/Nkofa as others have said, your explanation doesn't make much sense considering you were editing as recently as December 21 with the Weeb Dingle account, despite losing access "around Thanksgiving Day" and this is in November or October depending on what country you're referring to. It also doesn't explain why you claimed on your Nkofa user page that December 22 was you first day [62] or you are "now here" (which I think is clearly meant to be "new here"). Other parts of your comment strongly suggest your intention was to create a new account to avoid scrutiny of your editing here. Even editors making a legitimate Wikipedia:Clean start should generally avoid misleading about their history and especially when it comes to why they have a new account. Of course it is impossible to make a legitimate clean start if you are editing the exact same article, and started editing with your new account the day after your last one started editing. I strongly suggest you think carefully about any further comments, since anything but honesty is not likely to go down well and you're clearly on thin ice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

We have an IP making the same edit 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem, each time from a different IP-address: [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. What would be the best course of action? Could somebody here implement it, please? :) Debresser (talk)

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

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

72.185.118.31

72.185.118.31 (talk · contribs) seems to have made only disruptive edits. These last days he has been warned a few times not to make WP:ERA changes. See also the telling change he made (twice) to his talkpage,[73] proving that he is not willing to abide by our MOS guidelines on this issue. Perhaps it is time to block this editor for a month or so, just to get the point across? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Whydopeoplebother

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the edits in Ashina tribe and Göktürks page by Hunan201p

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

Basicaly same sources over and over mentioning Klyashtorni.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

| religion = Disputed, see text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The root of the problem is not his opinions; it's his behavior. This consistently involves accusing his colleagues of "falsification" (example: [[74]]; in this case "falsification" means not having the supplementary tables of one source and reporting the same information as relayed in another source that directly cites it) and all sorts of other things, seeming to imply that every case of misbalance he perceives is the result of some sort of misinformation attempt, and in the case of Beshogur, making an entire talk page attack section titled "Beshogur's opinions". That is not collegial, professional behavior. --Calthinus (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

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 [75]. "Nellee" sounds a lot like a stage name to me and a quick search finds non RS or other unsuitable sources like [76] and a company record. Bernard Sumner I found [77]. 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)

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)

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[78] 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)

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)

PAustin4thApril1980 Reported by Alcibiades979 for Racism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 ([79], [80], [81]). 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 [[82]]; 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)

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)

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: [83] [84] [85] [86]

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)

edit warring by Human Taxonomist over multiple articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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[87] on the 31st for unconstructive editing at English people presumably because of this[88] 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[89] 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 [90] 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: [[91]]. 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 [92] (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 [93] and talk:Origins_of_baseball [94]. Human Taxonomist was clearly aware of my objections since he or she replied to both threads [95] [96] before making the final revert [97]. 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 [98]. 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 [99] 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 [100]. Instead you dismissed the discussion on the other talk page [101] "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" [102] 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 [103]. 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 [104]. 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 [105] [106]). 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 [107]. I made a major reply there on December 4th [108], 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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)

Threatening messages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 [109]. --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.[110] 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-warring on UK far-right politics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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 [111]. 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)

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. [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120] 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. [121], 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 ([122], [123], adding unsourced draft rules/unsourced detail that someting "had never been attempted", [124]) and has included personal comments in WP:COMMENT text ([125], [126]). 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 [127] [128]. 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 [129]. 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)

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)

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)

Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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: [130]. 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: [131] 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)
  • Thanks. I asked a question at their talk and was planning a block if no satisfactory answer was available. Events overtook that and there was no answer. Johnuniq (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jamez42's repeated block deletions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.[132]. 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 ([133]) and have argued against it on the talk pages ([134][135][136], the last of which never received any reply) but was reverted by Jamez42 ([137]) 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)

I have withdrawn my thread in the noticeboard based on the advice of participants. I apologize to any other participant here that believe it was a bad idea to start it. However, I still wish to ask the closing user to weight this history when evaluating the result.

I'll leave here the interaction timeline between us starting froM February 2018. I hope that it isn't too difficult to browse, considering the few exchanges that we have had. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:25, 10 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 [[138]] (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 [139][140].

• 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: [141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152]

• 28 February 2019: Section was removed by an IP [153] and restored afterwards by Pokerplayer513 [154] 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 ([155],[156]) 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: [157]

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 ([158][159][160][161][162][163]), 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,[164][165] 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: [166][167][168][169][170][171] 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:[172][173] --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)

No noticing that Thorheim pinged in all of only one side of the alleged "POV debate" on his first post, so that all of the initial feedback on this thread was from people who happen to share Thorheim's POV? And from people who frequently use sources that do not represent majority viewpoints, while wanting to give UNDUE weight to those viewpoints? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I responded to this after seeing the notification demanded by Cmonghost on the US regime change talk page (which you can obviously see in my contribs that I came here after seeing the talk page). Unlike Cmonghost, I did not have a notification nicely placed upon my talk page like what David did for Cmonghost, which was blatant canvassing. Also Cmonghost, we have the right to be offended because you are discriminating against WikiProject Venezuela members based on your hypocritical canvassing accusations, especially when you responded to canvassing from David yourself. Like Sandy, I also have an issue with the WP:FRINGE tendencies of such users. If we want to talk about bias, we can also look at David the nominator who is linked to and a funding advocate of Code Pink, one of the main advocacy groups that has long defended the Chávez[1] and Maduro[2] governments (I do respect the disclosing of possible WP:COI, though). Throw in the support of fringe sources and some whitewashing edits on top of this and we could cook up an ANI for David according to their own standards. So, it is easy to point the finger and accuse others of "bias" and "disruptive edits", but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. We are all biased, so let's learn to work together, people.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To both of you: I think it's a more than a bit of a stretch to say that notifying individuals who are mentioned in a complaint is canvassing. I would have been surprised to not be notified given that I was involved in the dispute in question and that my own editing behaviour is likely to come under scrutiny (and in fact, already has below) as a result of the complaint. I did not "demand" that Jamez42 place a notification on the US regime change talk page. What I actually did was recommend he remove the biased notice he placed on the WikiProject page, and mentioned that if he insisted on notifying the WikiProject, an action I disagreed with, he should also be notifying others. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:04, 10 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 ([174],6-30-19,[175],1-1-2020)
• Edit-warring (3-11-19, 1-6-20)
• Block deletions when there is a dispute [176] 11-5-19
• POV editing (3-7-19,1-1-2020)
• Ignoring consensus [177],[178],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)

Besides, if you're considering a topic ban for an user with nearly six years of activity, more or less three in the English Wikipedia, it is only suitable to have a thorough discussion on it. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Probably no action. This is tl;dr, and I think this is not an obvious case for a topic ban. Why this is not so obvious? For example, speaking about diffs in the beginning of the thread, yes, the USA government was obviously involved in Venezuela politics by helping certain pro-democracy politicians. However, USA failed. There was no "regime change" in Venezuela - as a matter of fact. Given that, one can reasonably argue that such materials should not be included, even though my personal inclination would be to include. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I present a bolded !vote to topic ban Jamez42 from Latin American politics, in order to build on my brief comment above in support of David Tornheim, who correctly points out that Jamez42's editing behavior is at issue, and that Jamez42 has been repeatedly warned by a variety of concerned editors. The edit statistics overall show near-SPA editing on Venezuela politics and are de facto POV, and are not about building an encyclopedia. A topic ban is called for, and I join the other editors in this thread (about four screens above) in suggesting the Wikipedia community support this sanction to halt the disruption. Jusdafax (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Your use of the word variety is dubious; the editors calling for him to be topic banned are aligned with one POV, and not precisely a POV that represents a preponderance of sources. Second, your "de facto POV" allegation amounts to saying one cannot edit in the areas one knows best. I guess I had best stay away from nose, ear, mouth and vagina. I suggest that you stay away from fax. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Before asking for a topic ban against me, I ask to demonstrate how action or collaboration from my behalf to stop the alleged disruption is not possible, and how sanctions from the community are both preferrable and effective to stop it.

Citing from my response to Tornheim, editing only within a single broad topic is not SPA (WP:SPATG): When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA

If it is SPA and POV, I can be shown how to stop it. Just like I did with with Tornheim, invite participants to take a look at my created articles to have a broader picture. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Case in point

OK, you drug me in. I went and looked at United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Accusations. We can't get past the first three sentences before finding POV:

In April 2002, president Hugo Chávez was briefly ousted from power in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Members of the Bush administration held meetings with opposition leaders four months before the coup attempt and Chávez accused the United States of being involved. The OAS and all of Venezuela's neighbours denounced the coup attempt, but the United States acknowledged the new government.[179]

So, Jamez42 is trying to remove a section based on demonstrable POV? The section begins with cherrypicking from one source, and never gets better. Chavez accused the Bush administration of <fill in the blank ... between Chavez and Maduro the US is reponsible for everything, accusations are their middle name ... is there no other side to this story, perchance?) The first paragraph doesn't reflect even the minimum of a more full analysis of reliable sources that we find at the section on US alleged involvement at the "coup" article, and leaves a decided impression, in Wikipedia's voice, that is not supported by a preponderance of sources. (To every one of you who reverted back in this text based on this source, did you actually read the whole thing and can you say with a straight face that the source is accurately represented with balanced text?

So, I decided to see how that text came to be in this article.

• It started here with mere weasly cherrypicking of one source: (editor Zellfire999): [180]

  It has been alleged that the United States was involved in this coup attempt, due in part to members of the Bush administration- including some with past involvement in Latin American regime change- holding meetings with the coup leaders.

• Then, Jamez42 attempts to neutralize the statement (but doesn't go far enough to deal with the full misrepresentation): [181]
• Later, Jamez42 removes the section, because, yes, there's nothing there (unless we want to give full weight to conspiracy theorist Wayne Madsen talking to The Guardian, but we already do plenty of that along with discredited "girlfriend of chavismo" Eva Golinger over at the 2002 coup article, so why not spread it here, too? But I digress): [182]
• Oska reverts, but not just the removal-- Oska goes all the way back to the version before Jamez42 attempts to partially neutralize the statement: [183] 03:34 July 7, 2019
• Then ensues a mess between Oska and Jamez42, I didn't look at the talk page to see what was happening ala consensus, but possibly both of them edit warred. Stop that.

Post-ANI close addendum, added with the permission of the ANI closer, El C:[184] User:Oska came to this article as an RFC participant and pointed out that they had only two edits to the article. As Oska likely felt that I was "painting (them) with a broad brush" in all of the subsequent discussion here, I extend my sincere apologies for that oversight and my careless language. I have always believed that acknowledgement and apology trump striking words that anyone can still read, so I don't muck up the text with strikes, but the intent is the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Cmonghost expands the cherrypicked, unbalanced, POV text from The Guardian, moving the text beyond cherry picking one source to a POV one-sided representation of what the preponderance of sources say: [185]

In April 2002, president Hugo Chávez was briefly ousted from power in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Members of the Bush administration held meetings with opposition leaders four months before the coup attempt and Chávez accused the United States of being involved.[62] The OAS and all of Venezuela's neighbours denounced the coup attempt, but the United States acknowledged the new government.[62] The coup did not draw overt criticism from the Bush administration, and the White House initially denied that a coup had taken place, later distancing itself from direct involvement.

And that Cmonghost insertion is pretty much the POV text that is in the article now. No balance for accusations that are basically furthered by pro-chavismo (Golinger) and conspiracy theorists (Madsen). No indications of all of the sources stating that the US specifically declined to support the movement when they were told about. In Wikipedia's voice, using cherry-picked sources, we are implying that the US was involved in a "coup" because someone talked to them beforehand about dissatisfaction with Chavez, when a more complete analysis of all sources can be found over at the coup article.

We have here a dispute where one set of editors, who are responsible for the POV, are accusing another of POV. As I said earlier, one editor is trying to reflect the full body of reliable sources; others are cherrypicking. That group of editors frequently brings minority/fringe views and installs them with full weight, as in this case.

Besides that, this is a crap POV article overall, whose only apparent purpose is to further an agenda. Cmonghost, if you revert text back in to an article, you should check the source, and know all sources to make sure your text is balanced, because you are responsible for the current POV in the article. Broaden your reading base. Jamez42 is working from a base of knowing what the preponderance of sources say, but at a disadvantage in terms of talk page discussions because although his English is excellent, keeping up with multiple editors who don't know the sources is exhausting to even someone with native English. Jamez42, don't edit war; when you encounter POV warriers, walk away and let someone else deal with it.

Conclusion: No one is right in this mess, but Jamez42 is less wrong than others, and you all need to do better. Shut this down and send them all away with a reminder to edit more carefully and discuss more collaboratively, while considering a preponderance of reliable sources. Trying to topic ban the one editor who is more accurately representing sources isn't on.

Oh, and Thorheim, before complaining about Jamez42's "walls of text", could you drop the excess markup in yours, because it's very irritating. Adults don't need your undelining, bolding, etc. to be told what to pay attention to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not liking your increasingly belligerent tone in this discussion SandyGeorgia. You are throwing aspersions at people willy-nilly. Regarding the allegation of 'edit-warring' you have thrown at me, here are the only two edits I have ever made to that article. The first was to revert the wholesale deletion of the section on Venezuela by Jamez42. The second was to revert his commenting out of that same section.

Further, your assertion Besides that, this is a crap POV article overall, whose only apparent purpose is to further an agenda is showing your own bias. It appears that you don't approve of the article and thus are fine with people wholesale deleting parts of it. If you don't think the article should exist then you are free to nominate the article for deletion. That's the recognised process. And just as we have a formal discussion process to follow for deletion of articles we should also engage in discussion about wholesale deletion of sections of articles if there is non-consensus. Oska (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand you may be uncomfortable having discussions of text based on sources, but you do realize that two reverts to the same thing is edit warring, I hope. Did you read The Guardian source before twice re-adding cherry-picked text to the article? Do you consider a 2007 source the best we can do in this case, considering the Wayne Madsen conspiracy theory connection to The Guardian? You reverted the text back in twice, so you should be able to defend the addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And my “bias” is that we don’t build entire article sections around fringe, conspiracy theories, which result in crap. While my “belligerent opinion” is that you should all try harder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The edit notes I made at the time speak for themselves. To insinuate that I necessarily support some particular part or source of the text that I reinstated is disingenuous and again, an overly aggresive assertion. I was simply reverting the wholesale removal of a section of the article. Jamez42 did not seek to discuss my revert, instead he responded by commenting out the section (thus essentially re-deleting it for any normal reader). Oska (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

When you reinstate text, you should be able to defend it. Can you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously reinstating a whole section (13,642 characters) that another editor has wholesale deleted is different from reinstating a sentence or two, or any particular source. You're on very shaky ground here. My actions were the standard actions of any disinterested wikipedia editor who sees large sections of articles being removed. Oska (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Then I must not be a standard Wikipedian, because I would not wholesale add text on a controversial topic if I did not understand the text or could not defend it. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I have not added any text to that article. I have only reinstated deletions. I am really getting tired of your misrepresentations of me.

Further, browsing your talk page I see that you see any editing of Venezuelan articles through a particular prism:

That doesn't mean I am naive to the topic of paid editing in Venezuelan articles. When Hugo Chavez was alive, and the Venezuela Information Office was a thing, it was a widely and well known fact that he controlled the entire suite of Venezuela articles, and attempts to recruit Wikipedia editors happened. I know. Personally. It's why I stopped editing the topic for many years, only coming back when I heard of the January 2019 crisis. No one was complaining when a blatant and pronounced pro-Chavez bias dominated the suite because Chavez was media savvy and put his best people on the job. I am completely unaware of any such effort during the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, and considering the approaches I used to get, I think if there were a current effort to control the content on Wikipedia, I would have been approached. My observation is that we are dealing with a small group of editors, like me, who either by birth or other life circumstances, are familiar with Venezuela.

So someone like me, who came to the article through an RfC, gets to be viewed through this same conspiracy viewpoint. Charming. Oska (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So sorry you are displeased, but pointing out that you editwarred seems to be troubling you beyond what is warranted. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t put it on your foot. Feel free to link to the entire discussion about the Reddit idiot who tried to claim I was a paid government schill based on editcountitis, and let’s see how far that boat floats. I would do it for you, but I am on an iPhone right now. When I am on a real computer, I can strike or re-phrase anything that you believe paints you unfairly, but when you twice re-add disputed text, you cease being a neutral RFC respondent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

To any editor interested to read specifically about the 2002 coup content dispute to form their own opinion, you can read Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#WPJ source, where cmonghost and I have discussed at length both the merits and the form of the inclusion of this content. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cmonghost is prone to discussion, so I was surprised to find this insertion came from them. People in good faith may simply not be aware of what the full body of reliable sources have to say on a topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is really not the place to relitigate this content dispute. You should post this stuff on the talk page if you want to get involved in that. What I will say is that the process of collaborative editing you are calling for, and I would also like to be able to follow, is rendered impossible when good-faith, sourced edits are repeatedly deleted on flimsy grounds (e.g., calling a scholarly article synthesizing primary sources a "primary source" itself and never explaining why). This is why I have repeatedly requested Jamez42 to follow WP:BRD rather than enforcing their preferred version of the article through repeated deletion. I agree that the current version of the 2002 section is poor (for example, it refers to Chávez intimidating people who received such civil society assistance, but no longer explains what the civil society assistance was or why it's relevant, because Jamez42 deleted it and didn't bother cleaning up), but I gave up working on it because it is not worth anyone's time to try to contribute material that will be immediately deleted. If Jamez42 is as versed in the sources as you claim, I'm confident they can contribute by adding more sources and additional context rather than attempting to remove all Venezuela content wholesale. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Addendum post-close, added with the permission of the closing admin, User:El C.[186] Oska came to this article as an RFC participant and pointed out that they had only two edits to the article. As Oska likely felt that I was "painting (them) with a broad brush" in all of the previous discussion here, I extend my sincere apologies for that oversight and my careless language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Edit5001

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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 [187] and Bishonen [188]; they have responded without acknowledging the warnings
5. they have repeatedly [189] [190] engaged in edit-warring at Unite the Right 2
6. they have engaged in edit-warring [191] [192] on Heartbeat bill
7. they have engaged in edit-warring [193] [194] 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) ([195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201]). 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 [202][203] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iwinagain66

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Has so far made 4 edits

[[204]] I just told them this was a minor edit in case it was a mistake.

[[205]] another user issues them a warning.

[[206]] I issues them a warning.

[[207]]

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 [[208]], 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MioAkiyama26

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GPRamirez5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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.[209][210][211] 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)

To me, this just looks like revenge. Filer had to go back nearly a year. The Banner talk 23:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: There are two reasons why I have to disagree. The first one being that I don't seek a retribution against GPRamirez5 nor am I asking for it, but rather I seek to bring attention to this pattern. The second being that we have had very few interactions, and the only few ones that we have had have been hostile. Have we had more discussions or talked more, I don't think that I would have started this thread.

Of course, I completely understand if it is considered that there aren't grounds for this thread. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the editing and behavior by GPRamirez5 can be a matter of serious concern. However, bringing a complaint about him during a complaint about you was a bad idea. I would suggest you to withdraw this request. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is an absolute WP:WALL o' text. Not only do I advise the filer to retract this, but to also keep future complaints concise. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw this thread per the recommendations of the peers. The only thing I ask for is to weight this interaction when closing the aforementioned thread. @CaptainEek: Please let me know if you think another way more brief complaint should be started. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and potential editing while logged out by Q douglasii

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Q douglasii (talk · contribs) has been insistently adding unsourced and low quality revisions of coats of arms to articles related to the Holy Roman Empire, and has been edit warring over them. See [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218] as just a few representative diffs. More serious however, and why I'm bringing this here is that he appears to be logging out to avoid scrutiny, as the following diffs showing a IP restoring his edits shows: [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227]. The reason I've brought this here rather than to wp:AN/3 is because of the logging out, while the reason I haven't brought it to wp:spi is because I don't think Q douglasii is associated with a known sockmaster, and SPI tends to ignore such cases.

@Dragovit: who has had the most interaction with him.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Srnec: as someone else who cares about this and edits the HRE article (doesn't seem to be very important to the ANI crowd). His relevance shown by these edits [228], [229], [230], [231] (which are additional diffs of Q douglasii edit-warring).--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that Q douglasii displays wp:Ididn'thearthat behavior on talk pages (see here) as well as on their own talk page, and has refused to provide sources when asked for them. Most recently they've just refused to discuss anything on their talk page. [232], [233].--Ermenrich (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Q douglasii repeatedly deletes templates and revertes edits

The User:Q douglasii in his uploaded files instantly removes templates with links to vector versions and also templates indicating that are not official Coat of arms, which they really are, because they never existed and adopted. This his behavior is a heavy violation of the rules and should be penalized. These templates are intended for this purpose, they cannot be inserted or removed as someone wishes, they merely inform that there are vector versions on Wikimedia. These Coats of arms of the User:Q douglasii are unhistoric and just putative of the author, because there are no sources for them. The author did not procure sources to support them because there are no sources (depictions, chronicles, documents etc.), just NOTHING. These files just collages created by elements taken from elsewhere, some are random/generated or taken from modern ones. It's proven that these are fictional versions by his own ideas. The user re-uploaded some of his files again-repeatedly, which means that he don't know what it should look like. He does not have the necessary knowledge of history and heraldic rules, he create them as he think they should look. This is absolutely wrong! It is inadmissible to be placed in historical articles about real historical states! The Wikipedia is intended for education and inform, not for one's artistic realization or hobby and fun. If the author does not want or fails to have the necessary sources for his files, his creations should not be used in the articles, because there is no possibility of discussion about it. There is nothing to discuss without sources. He enforces its files through coercion. The user now creates another files and wants to replace many more! I'm not the only one who reversed his edits, someone has done it a few times, but Q douglasii cancels instantly everything. If it is to be effective, a step together is needed, otherwise this problem will take a long time. I suggest these scrap should be replaced or deleted immediately in the articles. Otherwise reputation of Wikipedia will fall and will become an unreliable source. We cannot maintain its quality level if there aren't enough active users, but if you are, don't overlook it. We can't let this happen, please. I beg you, do something about it. – Dragovit (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Q douglasii repeatedly deletes his talk page

This message the User:Q douglasii still deletes because of the annoying facts about his inaccurate files.

Quote: Please have a look at these historical thalers. It's show a real historical Coat of arms of the Electorate of Hanover.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

And now please compare these pictures, which is closer to them? :D

• (your version that you think is the best and most accurate)
  (your version that you think is the best and most accurate)
• 
• 
• 
• 

Please, my friend, stop making this useless bullshits with the hat of Santa Claus. You're wasting your time only, mine and yours, but worse, you're ruining Wikipedia and its reputation. – Dragovit (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Uploaded files in details

Let's look at those files in detail. The User:Q douglasii assumes that all medieval Coats of arms have the same shape, one specific color and one beast (lion, horse, eagle etc.) thus all files seem to correspond to his concept of aesthetics and have nothing to do with history. He does not assume at all that the Coats of arms developed and depended on the ruling houses, just then much later were identified with the country. All coat of arms have the same royal crown and electoral bonnet/hat and it does not matter if the elector was a king, archbishop, duke or margrave, so it is also wrong. It is also common practice that the last historical coat of arms is used in article's infobox. The problem is that the user's creations do not represent any particular period, it is only a author's hypothetical representation of what a coats of arms might look like if were created in nowadays. In fact, there was no specific form and the coats of arms had different appearance, so it is misleading. – Dragovit (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Kingdom of Bohemia
  Kingdom of Bohemia
• Electorate of Hanover
  Electorate of Hanover
• Electorate of Hanover
  Electorate of Hanover
• Electorate of Bavaria
  Electorate of Bavaria
• Electorate of Bavaria
  Electorate of Bavaria
• Electoral Palatinate
  Electoral Palatinate
• Electoral Palatinate
  Electoral Palatinate
• "Kingdom of Saxony"
  "Kingdom of Saxony"
• Electorate of Saxony
  Electorate of Saxony
• Electorate of Württemberg
  Electorate of Württemberg
• Margraviate of Brandenburg
  Margraviate of Brandenburg

The medieval Kingdom of Bohemia had an electoral vote in the Holy Roman Empire to elect an emperor. User:Q douglasii assumes, that Bohemia had its own electoral Coat of arms, so he created the hybrid Coat of arms with with combinantion of the electoral bonnet/hat and the german Crown of the King of the Romans on the top. However, this Coat of arms cannot be found nowhere. I told him that the Bohemian coat of arms uses the Crown of Saints Wenceslas and he made the change only upon my request, apparently he hadn't known about this before. However in Bohemian/Czech heraldry this specific combination has never existed. The author is aware that the King of Bohemia was an Imperial Arch-Cupbearer, so he combined the Coat of arms of Bohemia with the Coat of arms of Imperial Arch-Cupbearer as a inescutcheon, but this combinated Coat of arms cannot be found nowhere, never existed. However, he decided to replace by this file another one, that is perfectly fine and accurate. He placed it to an infobox in article about the Kingdom of Bohemia as a state coat of arms, which than was reverted, but he apparently plans to repeat it.
The rest is same as the Kingdom of Bohemia. The author is aware that the Elector of Hanover was an Imperial Arch-Treasurer, so he simply combined the Coat of arms of Hanover with the Coat of arms of Imperial Arch-Treasurer as inescutcheon. He doesn't care that he has no sources, and nowhere can this coat of arms be found. The red inescutcheon is possible against heraldic rules, because the background is also red and the coat of arms is not clearly visible. Such a coat of arms could not do its function anywhere. The horse was taken from the modern Coat of arms of Lower Saxony, today's state of Germany. The shape also matches with the modern Lower Saxon coat of arms. It is therefore a collage/hybrid of various heraldic elements of different Coats of arms, which are some modern, but the author doesn't care. All coats of arms are created in the same way. Appearance is same-identical as copied or generated via template. Everywhere is used the german crown of the King of the Romans (Kingdom of Germany), which is sometimes combined with the Electoral bonnet/hat. For the Coat of arms of the Electorate of Bavaria he used only Wittelsbach lozenges without the lion of the Palatinate of the Rhine, so he knows nothing about the influence of Wittlesbachs transcending Bavaria. – Dragovit (talk) 17:46–18:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Electorate of Mainz
  Electorate of Mainz
• Electorate of Cologne
  Electorate of Cologne
• Electorate of Trier
  Electorate of Trier

Also archbishops have the same Electoral bonnet. The author does not care that due to their religious office they wore the archbishop's miter and this was reflected in heraldry. The golden lines are derived from one old depiction and do not occur anywhere else, apparently it was it's decoration on the picture and nothing more. Everywhere are crosses without these golden lines. The author simply does not respect history or knows nothing about it. – Dragovit (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Margraviate of Brandenburg
  Margraviate of Brandenburg
• Margraviate of Brandenburg (flag)
  Margraviate of Brandenburg (flag)
• Duchy of Prussia
  Duchy of Prussia

These are just duplicates and they are already on Wikimedia, the same and in much better quality in vektor format. There is no need to insert the same coats of arms, but even this user does not understand. He replaced flawless files with his, because he wanted his own to be there. It does not do it for historical accuracy, but for its pleasure and aesthetic sense. – Dragovit (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JoshuaIsTheFalco

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although the majority of user:JoshuaIsTheFalco's recent edits appear to be fine, despite warnings and explanations, they continue to make occasionally troubling edits. In particular, they have a tendency to reword or rewrite racial demographic information in ways that are potentially disruptive. Based on their edit summaries and talk page posts, they seem to hold a fallacious belief that qualitatively describing racial demographic trends in an article is akin to advocating for fewer White people [234].

Recent edits: [235], [236], [237], [238]

Older edits: [239], [240], [241]

Other strange or worrisome edits: [242],[243], [244], [245], [246]

What's especially notable to me is that the demographic edits are generally confusing and sometimes ungrammatical rewrites of the prior sentences. Even ignoring the racial aspects, these edits strike me as at best, careless and hasty. I feel bad for suggesting it, but I was wondering if a topic ban on demographic information would be appropriate? That said, because of some of their behavior, I am also concerned by potential competency issues regarding their general edits. Thanks, Darthkayak (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

So your telling me that a so called fake decline in White British on Worcestershire page is appropriate?. I found it offensive because the author of that claimed nationwide there was a trend of decline. Yet the white population grew in Worcestershire. Telford and others edited used very informal language to demonstrate diversity. Low rates = Lack of. Wording like While this change is in line with the nationwide trend of the White British share of the population shrinking, is very offensive and disgusting. Almost saying its shrinking so there'll be no white people. If that wording is allowed and appropriate then Wikipedia really are in the left wing offensiveness. Signed JoshuaistheFalco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You aren't helping yourself here, on either of the concerns that Darthkayak referenced. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Both myself and Redrose64 tried to help JoshuaIsTheFalco last time this occurred. It clearly hasn't worked, judging from the recent edits linked above, and the "your (sic) telling me that a so called fake decline in White British on Worcestershire page is appropriate" was explained very clearly last time as well. This is a WP:CIR issue (as is very obvious from their reply above), especially as they don't actually seem to understand the difference between numbers of people and percentage of population, and I have blocked JITF indefinitely until they produce an unblock request that either promises to stay away from racial demographic issues here or makes it clear that they understand the problems that they are causing. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

JoshuaIsTheFalco has offered an unblock request, I will leave it to another admin to answer it. My own view is that if he does stay away from the area he is causing major problems in, we can work with the rest of it. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This request was misformatted (which, to be fair, is common among unblock requests), and I have reformatted it so that it works. I think there's a serious CIR problem here: in most of the user's comments, I can vaguely understand what he's talking about but not what he wants to say about it. (As one trivial example above: "Wikipedia really are in the left wing offensiveness". What does it mean, to be in the [whatever] offensiveness?) CIR. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Black Kite leaving it to another admin sounds reasonable. As to the diffs Darthkayak has provided, JoshuaIsTheFalco's changing and removing words and statements because they're offensive is a bit troubling, not to mention adding unsourced speculation [247]. And JoshuaIsTheFalco's unblock request seems a bit vague as it's not worded in a way that it can easily be understood. It's hard to make up what he's trying to say in his unblock request to be able to tell one way or another if he understands the reasoning for his block or not. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The original unblock request was quite understandably declined as it didn't quite address the problem fully; now that he's agreed to unambiguously stay away from racial demographics I have accepted his second unblock request with that specific topic ban in place. Hopefully this problem is now solved to everyone's satisfaction, provided no further inflammatory edits are made. ~ mazca ^talk 17:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks good. Endorse unblock as the user has agreed to the unblock conditions. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Truth213

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:Truth213 keeps adding the wrong year of birth for Iswarya Menon. CLCStudent (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism-only account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.