Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Viriditas (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 28 April 2020 (→‎Strange edits by IP: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Multiple IP user

    This pertains to the following IP addresses which I believe are all from the same user:

    The author has been previously instructed times about:

    Examples of copy-pasted phrase dumped into other articles (usually in the leading paragraph) to promote Christianity and colonialism article:

    When edits in Christianity and colonialism#Korea were called into question, the author's justification predominantly consisted of theories and unsupported assertions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChristianity_and_colonialism&type=revision&diff=950452403&oldid=948485403

    Despite the fact that the Talk page disagreement was not resolved, the author continues to add content without justifying its placement in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_colonialism&type=revision&diff=951890917&oldid=951469647

    I reached out to the IRC help chat for advice. Upon looking into the situation, the editor in IRC instructed me to post here.

    GottaShowMe (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, there isn't anything that can be done to stop all of this. Some admins may try to block ranges of IPs, but this vandal will be back. 174.226.128.166 (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An argument could certainly be made for blocking 121.124.0.0/16 without losing much of value, based on the last 12 months of contributions. Gricehead (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a user who is extremely passionate about their point of view and doesn't understand Wikipedia standards such as NOR, citations, citing other Wikipedia pages, etc. I don't think the IP-hopping is intentional, but it makes the user hard to pin down and have a discussion with. Several people from different pages have reached out to the user in the past over edits. In the few actual responses I've seen, it seems the user doesn't grasp what they're doing wrong. I wonder if some kind of temporary block can be used to get the user to slow down and learn more about Wikipedia editing standards. In the meantime, perhaps Christianity and colonialism should be submitted for some kind of review? That seems to be the primary focus on this user's editing. There are whole sections that are uncited. GottaShowMe (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:61.102.135.60 is back to editing without citations and dropping links in other articles without any respect to whether they fit contextually within the article. GottaShowMe (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tahc removed some uncited material from Christianity and colonialism. User:61.102.135.60 has reverted Tahc's changes, claiming that the changes were "vandalism." User:61.102.135.60 has not yet responded to any of the April messages on their talk page, included a new message about reverts of uncited material on another page by User:Materialscientist. GottaShowMe (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh hello. It seems there is a conspiracy theory going on here. What I can say is that my IT skills do not extend to IP addresses - in fact I don’t own a computer. I do not register for an account because I do not generally edit or use Wikipedia. That hopefully also indicates that I do not feel strongly about any particular issue on Wikipedia - the organization has had many defections over the years, a few scandals of companies editing their own or client pages, and therefore Wikipedia has been much reduced in credibility to me since it’s been included in Wikileaks, if I remember correctly. The Christianity and colonialism article happened to correspond to what I was researching for my professional work. If my edits and references are in any way lacking and decrease, instead of increasing, quality of the article, and if other users are invested in the subject, please make incremental edits to the quality of the article instead of deleting half of it and then moving around whole blocks, without editing, to purposefully harm the very credibility of the topic. The two complainants have not provided a single constructive edit, or reference, or engaged in a discussion on the topic, for the entire 10-year existence of the article in question.

    I am becamain’t aware that I am touching some strong religious feelings by even editing the Christianity and colonialism article. Well, guys - if someone found a few books, all published by reputable scientific publishers, over more than 50 years, elaborating on the topic, what do you do? You go and delete half of the entire article, including references.

    Firstly, the discussion about article and its inclusion in something called “unimportant articles on Christianity” indicates strong feelings about its very existence, and that was years before my edits. Interestingly, GottaShowMe did not respond to the response provided to them on the Korea part of the article but came to complain here. His lack of edit history is a little suspect - it seems he has been activated solely by the Christianity and colonialism article.

    Meanwhile, Tahc’s Wikipedia edit history indicates a possible American Evangelical Christian background - he seems to have made hundreds of edits on Christianity and Jewish kings, and on that alone. His personal profile seems to summarize his readings of the Bible, chapter by chapter. The edits Tahc made equal vandalism - he removed properly sourced and scientifically backed parts of the article, after which he rearranged article in such a way (mixing Latin America and Jesuits) that can only be thought to have been designed to confuse readers. He also seems to have used editing techniques that made reversals more difficult than they generally are, with manual work required. He also confuses colonialism and colonies (as per their Wikipedia definitions).

    I would like to encourage our (extreme?) Christian friends to dig into scientific literature and provide any missing references, if they feel any are missing. Scientific material (almost invariably published by the most prestigious publishers like Princeton) has been provided and referenced to prove beyond reasonable doubt interplay between Christianity and colonialism in contexts such as the Baltics, Korea, Japan and India (just to refer to the most recent edits as per edit history page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.102.135.60 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone not at all involved in this dispute... yikes. That's a lot of personal attacks and unfounded allegations you've made, 61.102.135.60. Other editors have tried to steer you in the right direction by pointing out our rules & guidelines, but it seems you've decided your way is the right one and you have no intention of listening.
    For the record, and before more accusations are made, I'm not Christian. I am in fact, atheist. You're just in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to direct the admins to this user's recent response on the talk page, which was added today. Continuation of personal attacks and unfounded allegations.
    > Interestingly, GottaShowMe did not respond to the response provided to them on the Korea part of the article but came to complain here.
    With all due respect, User:61.102.135.60, you have mixed up the order of events. Notices of this incident were sent out 21 April 2020 to the talk pages for ALL of the IP's you use. Your response on the talk page dates to today, 28 April 2020. You are resorting to ad hominem attacks (accusing other users of clear bias) instead of addressing their critiques.
    Furthermore, the burden of proof for adding content is on the writer of that content, not the readers (WP:BURDEN). For example, on your talk page, you tell User:Materialscientist that "instead of reverting you could have looked it up yourself on Google News" in response to their removal of your uncited material. It is not another editor's job to look up citations for you, or citations that provide "counterfactuals" to your uncited material.
    GottaShowMe (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Recalcitrant user threatening to "en masse revert every article" I have touched

    It is with heavy heart that I come here to request help from user:Neutralhomer. We have been having a dispute over the silliest thing, but he has become increasing unhinged, finishing with a threat to "en masse revert every article you have touched". He has threatened to come to ANI because I continue to change coordinates from (for example) 41°39′26.00″N 83°36′57.00″W to 41°39′26″N 83°36′57″W. This is in keeping with WP:CALC policy, and guidance in many other places. When I showed him that editors at his project long ago decided the issue, he plays the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT card and threatened me, "tread very lightly", ANI, and mass reversion. Please let him know that his behavior is not conducive to building the encyclopedia. Thanks, Abductive (reasoning) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Where does WP:CALC say to drop the decimal? (I know next to nothing about coordinates)--v/r - TP 04:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rounding, a routine calculation. There is no carveout for coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: There is nothing "routine" about these calculations. These are the exact (or near exact) coordinations of radio station transmitters directly from the FCC database. What Abductive what's to do is input his own coordinates he has taken from Google Maps (see the history of WYFI, November 18, 2019) and that is clear OR. Not what we do here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    I thought you were in the Air Force!? In this particular case [omit fascinating technical explanation related to how far from the equator you are] .01″ is roughly one foot. So what's with these ultraprecise values? Is someone planning a missile strike? The .00 were almost certainly simply tacked on and represent false precision. EEng 04:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a navigator.--v/r - TP 13:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor the bombardier, I hope. EEng 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. I'm a 3D0X4...Computer Programmer. Haven't even left the United States (except for a Wikipedia hack-a-thon).--v/r - TP 01:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Air Force has some really weird codes for job specialties. I'm a former Navy brat and my Dad was honorably discharged (after serving 14 years) with the rank of MM2, Machinist's Mate Second Class. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32 on April 23, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    @EEng: I think the FCC gives a margin for error of like 1,000 feet or something when it comes to their coords. Sometimes I'll look for a tower and it's dead on top of a coord. Sometimes, it's half way across a road in a field somewhere. I think the FCC gives it a "eh, close enough" margin. As long as it's not in the next county. :D - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Abductive has a habit of mismatching discussions, how they happen. This is one of them. This discussion is about Abductive's continued need to put the geocoords in radio station articles to the coords he finds on Google Earth. This is NOT how we do this. We use FCC documents. Numerous editors have told him this.
    So today, April 22 of all days, he comes to me with an discussion from 2010 and tries to say that Dravecky, Closeapple, and I somehow came to an agreement that his way was how we were going to do things 10 years prior to him showing up.
    Now, as most of you know, tomorrow, April 23 is when Dravecky left us 4 years ago. We at Wikipedia, we on this rock, are lesser for it every day. I miss talking science, talking radio, talking TV, just talking with Ed. He wasn't just someone I worked with, he was my friend.
    So, for Abductive to bring up the name of Dravecky in his warped attempt to get his way, to change Wiki history, to change Wiki policy, is just disgusting and is a disservice to everything good about Dravecky. Yeah, I lost my temper, but all the good faith went out there along time ago for him and his "heavy heart". He can play the victim, fine. But he can do it away from the good name of Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    I have no idea who the other editors are. The real question is, why do you care so much between 26.00 and 26? The articles you are exerting WP:OWNERSHIP over are the only ones like this on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The abuse continues. Abductive (reasoning) 04:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dravecky was an editor and admin on this project, mostly radio and TV stations, sci-fi too, from June 7, 2007 (with his first edit, fittingly of Starfleet International) until his last on April 23, 2016, the day he passed away. That's all you need to know.
    He taught me that the FCC Database is the end all, be all database, it is a highly notable reliable source and none other is more reliable. When it says 26.00, you put 26.00. If it says 25.65, you put 25.65. Because a Federal Government Database is the end all, be all and in radio and television, the FCC is the top. That's not OWNership, that's what I was taught by an editor who knew exactly what he was doing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Dude, you literally just said above that the FCC is erroneous: "Sometimes I'll look for a tower and it's dead on top of a coord. Sometimes, it's half way across a road in a field somewhere. I think the FCC gives it a "eh, close enough" margin." Why then do we believe that it is so precise? Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's the FCC and it's a source. Plus, 8 times out of 10, it's dead on top of the coord anymore. :) We still don't do original research regardless if a tower is in the woods 500 feet from where it should be. That could be a station lying to the FCC (it happens more often than you think). You don't get to pick and choose what policies you want to follow. OR is a biggie, everyone follows it. What you see on Google Maps, doesn't matter squat. FCC is golden. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    It's a primary source and clearly incorrect in some cases. But that doesn't matter to rounding what they say to remove superfluous zeroes. Abductive (reasoning) 05:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abductive: Where is it incorrect and who says to remove superfluous zeroes and round? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    You said above that the FCC gives a margin for error of like 1,000 feet or something. In light of that, giving decimal seconds (which translates to +/- 1 foot) is absurd. EEng 13:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: Please, you're gonna have to explain decimal seconds and their "translation" into feet, I don't understand it. :( I was force-passed in Math 11 because I just didn't "get" adding decimals. Anyway, I said I think the FCC gives a margin for error. I pulled a number out of the air (among other places). The towers I looked at could have been mis-coorded by the station (again, it happens more-often than you think) and it was off because of that. I don't believe there is an official on the books margain for error at the FCC, just when you look at the towers, it seems that way. That could be the NAD27 to NAD83 coords, everything going to GPS now (along with NAD83). I don't know. It was my belief there was. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:15 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Without going into a long song and dance, if you move from 41°39′26.00″ to 41°39′26.01″ you've only moved one foot (roughly); moving to 41°39′26.02″ is another foot away, etc. [1] So two questions arise.
    First, even if a coordinate like 41°39′26.00″ is exactly right, what real purpose does it serve to give something so precise i.e. precise to +/- 1 foot? If you leave the .00 off i.e. just say 41°39′26″, you're giving the location to +/- 100 feet, and isn't that good enough?
    But second (and more important), all those .00s are almost certainly not correct. It's like if a computerized list of people's heights listed 67.00 inches, 72.00 inches, 69.00 inches, 70.00 inches. Would you conclude that these four people were really measured to the nearest hundredth of an inch and that -- just by chance -- every one of them, when measured, all happened to have heights which are an exact, precise, whole number of inches, with no hundredths? Or would you conclude that the stupid computer just added the .00 because of the way it's programmed? Obviously the latter, and that's why including the .00 in these coordinates makes no sense. They're a computer artifact, not real data -- in technical terms false precision. I hope this helps. EEng 16:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that makes sense. Where were you when I was in 11th grade? :) I think the purpose has been to quote the source exactly as it is written to avoid OR and V/RS issues. Now, let me give you an example of where the issue lies there. Take WINC-FM for instance, currently showing the transmitter coords as 38°57′21.0″N 78°1′28.0″W. Well, according to the FCC database, that was correct...under NAD27. Under NAD83, their coords are now 38°57'21.30"N 78°1'26.90"W. That's far more exact. Instead of putting WINC-FM's tower somewhere in the woods, maybe near a cell tower. It has it dead next to it's actual tower. Most, if not all, pages, need to be updated to NAD83. That would make this entire discussion completely moot. That's a LOT of radio stations and typically it's Mlaffs, myself, and a few dedicated others doing the gnome-ish work around here. We would need help, a bot maybe. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:15 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    When I was 17 years old, (decades before GPS) because he wasn't into latitude and longitude and maps, my boss had me fill those co-ordinates out for FCC applications for repeater type radio transmitters. Whatever I wrote on the form became the official FCC coordinate listing for the transmitter.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I only responded to your abuse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    • I just looked up "recalcitrant". adjective: having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline. noun: a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude. I'll take that as a compliment. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Wow has it really been four years already... :/
    This seems like something that could be resolved by getting a couple other people involved in the dispute. Just to try to drill down to the specific issue: FCC vs. Google Maps. AFAIK we allow use of Google Maps to produce coords for articles on basically every other subject, so I guess it's probably considered a fine source for that? I think it's pretty standard to not even include a source, since it can be verified by clicking on the coords and seeing the subject? The how-to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates doesn't include adding a citation and I don't see anything about citing where you got it at Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates (maybe I've missed it). Putting aside the other issues here for a moment, I'm struggling to see why we would need to rely on the FCC specifically for radio towers, if they're sometimes imprecise, when we have other data available? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Abductive: You've not demonstrated that there was a previous consensus for your view and WP:CALC is so generic that it's a mile long stretch to argue that it requires your viewpoint. You two need to go get a third opinion. Quit bickering and leave each other alone. And quit the mass changes until an actual consensus is developed. Start a formal request for comment if neccessary.--v/r - TP 13:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warning: @Neutralhomer: I'm considering blocking you for a decent chunk of time for returning to the battlefield behavior that led to all your previous blocks (and which resulted in a block this past January). I thought we'd turned the corner on this; it is not acceptable to resume that. I very strongly suggest that you stop editing for a few days to regain perspective. Several of your comments above, and in diffs presented by Abductive, are beyond the pale. I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute; for all I know, you're right. That can be determined when you've regained perspective. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, yes, TParis's suggestion that both stop with any mass changes until a clear consensus is formed is spot on too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Floquenbeam: I'm man enough to admit that I might have over-reacted...but I miss my friend. You know I found out on my birthday in 2016? So to have Abductive come up with a discussion that him and I took part in a little over 24 hours before he passed away 4 years ago, it really struck a nerve. I believe that was what it was meant to do. I fell for that.
    Moving on, anyway, I have never used anything other than FCC documents to make changes to radio station (and other media) pages. That's just how I was taught. Plus, since that is our primary source, it is the Federal Government, it's always been considered something that's been allowed to exist as a unicorn (for lack of a better word, I just woke up) within CALC, within other rules because anything else could be considered OR when viewed beside the FCC source.
    Generally, I don't make masses changes to radio station pages when it comes to their coords (ie: changing just the last couple numbers, rounding). I only change them when they have been updated (the FCC is doing that in their en masse update to NAD83 (and so there isn't towers 500 feet from where their coords are), when a tower has been moved (see WNOR), and when I'm updating a page (doing a page refresh, it's rare anymore). I don't mess with coords. I just don't do it. As I said above, I use what is on the FCC website, I take that as gospel, and that's it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:05 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    • Just a comment here. I can see Neutralhomer's point. We report on what others say. What should be the coordinates of a tower is what the FCC says they are. Their databases are used for navigation by many commercial, government and private interests. For radio transmitters, it's what we should use. In other fields, yes, tenths and hundredths of seconds are completely superfluous and should be rounded. If your a matter of tenths of a second away from whatever you are locating, you are there. However, if you are 75 miles away from one transmitter you are triangulating off of and 100 miles from the other, those rounding errors multiply geometrically and now the location you've triangulated for yourself is off by thousands of feet. John from Idegon (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • One other point: for most locations we give coordinates the worst end result is they are wrong. Radio towers are frequently used for navigation (air land and sea). Incorrect location information on them could be life or death information. John from Idegon (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Because a pilot might check Wikipedia to navigate while flying IFR? Seriously? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Levivich, on our airport pages, the layout and runway images all?? say, that they are not for navigation or pilot usage. When a pilot starts a flight, they check the NOTAM's and any information they need for the flight. They don't check Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Those NOTAMs Sir Joseph mentioned are based off FCC coordinates. They aren't always correct. Even FAA coordinates for radio/television towers are based off the FCC database. Those coords come from the broadcasters themselves. Here's an example of a station broadcasting from where they shouldn't be and getting busted for it back in 2018. So, while the FCC is almost always correct, it does rely on broadcasters in an almost honor system. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
        If you're navigating based on a set of coordinates you imported from Wikipedia, you richly deserve the controlled flight into terrain that will probably follow. Choess (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, perhaps, but given wiki’s powers of citogenesis, it might be soon possible for someone to have that sort of error made for them. Better, always, to be right than consistent if it is a choice that has to be made. Qwirkle (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, I would counsel sprinkling in intentional errors here and there, and advertise that we do so, as a way of convincing people not to fly their planes off our data. EEng 15:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I read Wikipedia while high, but I never use it to navigate. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did it ever occur to any of you that there is a need to navigate things other than aircraft? I've found my way out of rugged territory on foot using radio triangulation, and a radio and compass were the only nav tools I ever used crossing Lake Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you're saying Wikipedia was not one of those nav tools. I think we can agree nobody is using Wikipedia to navigate anything anywhere, so if our coords are off, it's not a life or death mistake. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The underlying content dispute here would probably best be addressed at some other forum, perhaps WT:WPRS though there may be a better one that I'm missing. I will add briefly that WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed as long as they are used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I will also add that rounding is covered by WP:CALC. Ultimately the choice of what degree of precision to display is an editorial one, and there is room for good-faith disagreement among well meaning people on that question. If there are concerns over the reliability of sources in context, that would probably be best addressed at WP:RSN. Finally, going forward remember to comment on content, not the contributor. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popping in to add my two cents, just because I was name-checked earlier on. Is it worth going to the mattresses over whether or not transmitter co-ordinates should go down to the feet if the co-ordinate ends in "00"? Of course it's not, and this didn't need to escalate like that. Am I, personally, especially fussed if the "00" isn't included in a co-ordinate? No, not really, I guess – I'm just trying to stay alive right now. But would it be easier if there were consistency from radio station article to radio station article and they all used full NAD83 co-ordinates, including any "00"? Of course, because we can verify those co-ordinates with the FCC database, which is our gold standard in reliable sources for this information.
    All that said, I'm not sure that I'd interpret WP:CALC as the policy to back up an edit to remove a "00" if I were asked to step in as an uninvolved admin, but okay. But more importantly, I don't see how removing the "00" adds value to the project and if WP:WHYWOULDYOUBOTHERDOINGTHATJUSTBECAUSEYOUCAN doesn't exist as a guideline, it probably should. I haven't reviewed the edits that kicked this off, Abductive, but if the only edit being made in those cases is the removal of the "00", and it's not just ancillary to other additive edits that you're making to the article, I just don't see the point. Again, I don't know if that's the case. Mlaffs (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been fixing other stuff, mostly removing the type "city" and making the coordinates appear both inline and title. This is my Wikignoming. People should appreciate other people's efforts to make the encyclopedia better. Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abductive: What do you mean you've been removing the type "city"? You shouldn't be removing the "city" field from any page, period. That is standard in all Template:Infobox radio station infoboxes. Please explain.
    A radio station transmitter is not a city, it is a landmark in the coordinate parameter markup. I got this from your own Wikiproject talk page. You have ignored other people on that talk page for years. Abductive (reasoning) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abductive: The city field in Template:Infobox radio station infoboxes is for the city or community of license. It has nothing to do with the actual location of the station's transmitter. Once again, this is dictated by the FCC license, per the FCC database, and not some information you pulled from Google Maps. Also, please link to this discussion.
    Not the city field within the infobox, the type:city parameter within the coordinates template. That parameter (which may not even do anything anymore) tells the map what sort of object it is looking at. Others are "edu" for a school, "isle" for an island, etc. City means zoom out a lot, landmark means zoom in a lot. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's used in transmitter coords, it shouldn't be there. That we can agree on. City coords, like actual cities (ie: New York City, Metropolis, Illinois, etc.), it should be used there. For transmitters, it should be "landmark" because for lack of a better parameter, that's what we got to work with. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:35 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Floquenbeam, would you like to deal with the above behavior from Abductive...or should I start my own ANI thread? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:16 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    I don't understand what you don't understand about this: deal with content disputes using the steps outlined at WP:DR. Admins don't solve content disputes. What you're complaining about is a content dispute. I suspect at this stage, after all these wasted electrons over the last few days, if you open a new ANI thread complaining about a content dispute, someone will block you for WP:IDHT or WP:TE or something. It won't be me - even though I'm not technically WP:INVOLVED, it's clear you think I am, and it's not worth the headache of arguing about it - but this is an honest warning. I believe you are much closer to a block for resuming the battleground behavior than you think you are. In the mean time, I have muted pings from you, so don't expect them to work anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: What you are not understanding is this is not a content dispute. Never has been. It has to do with Abductive not adhereing to the policies of Wikipedia, specifically OR, RS, and V. Now, since you are threatening me with a block, refusing to discuss anything, and have a clear bias against me and for Abductive, perhaps I need to start an ANI thread for you. I've tried to be nice, tried to get you to see both sides here, tried to get you into this discussion. But you clearly refuse to be anything but biased toward me. You are more than WP:INVOLVED here. So, block if you will, but it will be overturned in violation of INVOLVED. Also, your self-admitted evening gin isn't something you should use tools on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:30 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    A couple examples of Abductive's use of Google Maps (ie: original research) in coords can be found here and here where he says in the edit summary "Tower now visible on Google/Bing/OSM maps." Clearly a violation of a OR. In this case he removed marked NAD83 coords, ones correctly sourced by FCC documents, for ones he "found" somewhere. It's clear original research. There is no backing source to his edit. If I wasn't the subject of this ANI discussion, I would revert that edit, probably with an OR warning.
    This is clearly the behavior that has pushed me to the end of my rope, my patience to the very end, and exhausted my good faith. I urge Mlaffs, Floquenbeam, TParis, and others to take a look at Abductive's edits as there is clearly an issue here. Yes, I may have lost my temper, but that does not excuse Abductive's editing behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:44 on April 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    It is unreasonable to be "pushed to the end of your rope" by edits like this. If you can't manage your emotions better than that, then please don't edit until you've regained control of them. Assuming for the moment that these aren't useful edits (I have no opinion, except to note that it would make us look silly to list people's height as 6 ft 3.000 in, or as 1.91000 m, and this seems, superficially, like a similar case), your battleground approach to content disputes is still more harmful to the encyclopedia than Abductive's edits here. Get a third opinion. Ask at WP:RADIO. Start an RFC. But don't go seriously overboard, hurl personal attacks, threaten to revert all of their edits, and expect people to ignore that and focus on a minor content dispute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: How about, instead of "Neutralhomer has a problem and probably shouldn't edit, but I have no opinion on the current problem, which helps no one, let's throw the problem on someone else's lap", maybe just maybe actually help. Clearly there is an OR issue. Clearly there is an RS issue. Clearly there is a V issue. These are BIG policies here at Wikipedia. Now, I'm just an editor who "can't manage [his] emotions" because an editor brought up my friend on the 4 year anniversary of the death of my friend (no opinion there, either?) but, I think we should do everything possible to uphold these policies. Fight to protect these policies. If needed, warn and block people who disobey these policies.
    So, yes, it is resonable for me to be "pushed to the end of [my] rope" by an editor who refuses to listen to the most basic of policies here at Wikipedia and basically do his own thing. It's also reasonable for me to get a little bit irked at an admin for allowing it and passing the buck.
    So, I'm asking you, get involved in the discussion, have an opinion...please. You've made it very clear how you feel about me (repeatedly). But as an admin, your input about the heart of the this problem is what really matters. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:49 on April 24, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Yes, I do have an "opinion there". I think you should be 100% ashamed of yourself for assuming that Abductive intentionally brought up a conversation your friend participated in to intentionally hurt you. 100% ashamed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: Like I said, we all know how you feel about me. Since you don't have an opinion on Abductive's editing behavior, I thank you for your time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12 on April 25, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    This feud is not helpful to anyone, especially its two participants. I agree that the optics of [Added: Neutralhomer] invoking a dead Wikipedian as pertaining to this dispute was in poor taste. El_C 00:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, if you actually follow the links related to this accusation, that is not what happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam, I've been following along. I'm not sure what you think I missed. El_C 00:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I just said something stupid. For some reason I thought you meant Abductive somehow "invoking" him, which is what NH claimed above, and which I'm saying didn't happen. Upon reflection that was a weird assumption to make, particularly in the context you made the comment. I think my Saturday evening gin and tonic might be a little too strong (in the sense that there's not really any tonic in there). Sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all good, Floquenbeam. Cheers — enjoy your drink! El_C 00:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Actually, Floquenbeam, in an odd twist of edit (more gin for you), got this one right. Abductive invoked Dravecky first. Yes, I said him by name first (I'm allowed, his my friend), but he linked to a discussion which he took out of sequence, and having nothing to do with his constant end-round of the rules (plus from 10 years ago, he dug for that one). So, Abductive is in the wrong here. I can talk about my friend all day, he was/is my friend. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:24 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    As Floquenbeam notes, there's no evidence whatsoever that Abductive was trying to be hurtful to you in any way with that. El_C 02:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: You'll have to forgive me, but with the clear evidence presented by Floquenbeam that he has a clear bias against me (for whatever reason), I would rather his "notes" be stricken from the record as they are not helpful in any regards. I hate to say that of a fellow editor, but he has shown clear, and completely unnecessary bias towards me, refusing to see both sides of this entire mess. He has actually threatened to block me, twice, even though he is heavily INVOLVED and biased.
    Abductive has warped multiple discussions (including the one in question), blatantly ignored multiple policies (ie: OR, RS, V to start), and no one has so much has batted an eye. Floquenbeam considers that a "content dispute", which it isn't. It's never been about "content", it's been about following the rules set out by this project, by this community.
    So, for Floquenbeam to say that Abductive to wasn't "hurtful to [me] in any way with that" (ie: bringing up the discussion involving Dravecky form 2010) is something that is unbelievable, which means I don't believe it. I don't believe the words of a biased editor who says another editor (who he is clearly protecting) isn't trying to get my goat (and admitted did). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Neutralhomer, on what basis do you assert that the mention was intended to be hurtful to you on Abductive's part? And on what basis do you assert that Floquenbeam "has a clear bias against [you]"? El_C 14:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neutralhomer: I don't see the intent behind Abductive's link that you do. Abductive's link isn't substantial enough to call it "consensus" but it was an instance where this conversation was briefly had. I'm sorry about your friend. I love Doctor Who and I live in Texas and I'm now considering going to the next WhoFest if they have one. Maybe we'll meet up there someday.--v/r - TP 14:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TParis: It wasn't anything in the link, it was the introduction of the link a day and a half before the 4 year anniversary of his passing. If they don't have a WhoFest, try FenCon. Usually if they don't have a WhoFest, they have some WhoFolk at FenCon. You'll see Dravecky there in spirit, they keep him there front and center. :) I actually haven't seen Doctor Who, now I have PLENTY of time, so you'll have to give me pointers as to where to start. 1st doctor or somewhere more modern? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:40 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    @El C: First, the 10-year-old discussion was posted at 21:34 (or 9:34p EDT) on April 21. I was already feeling that pain. Anyone who knew even remotely anything about this project knew that Dravecky and I were friends (on and off Wiki), I took his passing hard, they knew when the date of his passing was just by looking at his talk page and the WP:WPRS page. For him to dig up a 10-year-old discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralhomer&diff=952416276&oldid=952400579 which had nothing to do with what he claimed it did, spin the timeline (again), and involve my friend. Yeah, it was meant to be hurtful. It was meant for me to lose my temper and I did. I completely admit that.

    As for Floquenbeam, I guess we could start with where he threatened to block me above (and only me), but I'd rather start here. I mention that Abductive had changed the coords on two pages mentioning in the edit summary "Tower now visible on Google/Bing/OSM maps." In this case he removed marked NAD83 coords, ones correctly sourced by FCC documents. I pinged Floquenbeam among others for their input. He did respond, saying I need to "manage my emotions better" (apparently he hasn't grieved before), and attempted to pass the back onto RFC or WP:RADIO, still calling this a content dispute. Not a violation of rules.

    In his previous post, Floquenbeam said "[he had] no opinion", I attempted to the force the issue with this post. To force Floquenbeam to have an opinion on the issue of Abductive and his edits. He ignored everything I said of substance, the OR, the V, the RS, and told me he though I should be ashamed of myself, 100% ashamed. After that, I knew there was no getting through to him and thanked him for his time.

    After this post, which I admit I missed due to the chaotic nature of this thread, I responded to Abductive here, ping Floquenbeam. Now, in that response, knowing full well I wasn't going to get a positive response, I asksed "would you like to deal with the above behavior from Abductive...or should I start my own ANI thread?". He responds saying he isn't "technically INVOLVED" but "if [I] open a new ANI thread complaining about a content dispute, someone will block you for WP:IDHT or WP:TE or something." He first tells me to start a new thread to a content dispute, then threatens to have me blocked for starting a new thread for a content dispute....again taken nothing into account of what I have said. Then, in the childish sticking-my-fingers-in-my-ears "I can't hear you", he turns pings from me off. He admits he's been drinking later (gin and tonic) when getting a timeline all screwed up from clearly not reading things himself. I responded to that, setting the record straight and a minute later to his "I've turned pings off" post. Ironically, the pings went through just fine. It is proper WikiEtiquette to send pings/talk notes.

    In a slight bit of irony, after this post from Abductive, him and I actually agreed on something. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:35 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    @Neutralhomer: I’m sorry for your loss and the emotions that must have arisen on the anniversary of your friend’s passing. While you may have perceived the cause of this timing to be malicious intent, I don’t think it’s reasonable from an objective observer to assume that Abductive purposefully timed this content dispute + link to an old thread to be 3 years and 363 days after the passing of an editor who was your dear friend but with whom they were not familiar. Even if you still internally believe that this was a malicious and purposeful mention, it would be best to drop that stick. If that was Abductive’s intent, there’s not enough to demonstrate that intent to anyone else. Many of us empathize with your loss, please do be well during these troubling times. — MarkH21talk 16:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkH21: Thank you. You stay well and stay sane too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Neutralhomer, regarding Abductive, I'd like to piggy-back on MarkH21's excellent comment directly above. Well said. As for Floquenbeam, my experience is that he is fair and even-handed. So, I would be surprised to learn that the, at times, harsh exchanges between you two were without basis. I'm just not sure what that basis is to make an informed evaluation. As for many of the links you provided, and the technical facets at the heart of this latest dispute with Abductive, I'm afraid much of that went well over my head. Sorry for the loss of your friend. Some say time lessens the pain. It does and it doesn't. El_C 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Thanks. Time does. It's the lead up to that anniversary that gets me every single time. I don't know any other way to grieve. Couple days before, I'm an angry, pain-filled mess. Working helps. Such as this kind of work is. On that day, I get to the depression. I still want to work. I want to find something to gloss over the issue with...anything. The next day was my birthday, so I had something good to look forward too, otherwise, it would have been that long bridge back up and working through. I don't do grief well, being Autistic (I have Aspergers), but I try to grieve "normally", but sometimes I get stuck in the "anger" phase and I just can't help it, it's my fall back, it's where my brain gets stuck for a couple days.
    That said, I still do not believe that this entire thing, long before him bringing up the discussion from 10 years ago, is a content dispute. This has been going on for awhile. It has to do with policy, not the content of the article. Right now, though, I just don't have it in me to continue this any longer. I'll leave it up to you, Floquenbeam, TParis, MarkH21, and other admins who took part in this discussion to do whatever you see fit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55 on April 26, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Having read through this discussion, as a completely uninvolved party, I believe the core problem is a disagreement over interpretation of policy. As demonstrated through this thread, this seems to be a reasonable disagreement; this issue is not a hard-and-fast rule like WP:RS (and even that gets into disputes about "reliability" of a source). It would be a conduct dispute if the consensus was for a specific interpretation but one specific user refused to honor that consensus. In this case, there's a reasonable dispute over how precise we need to be within the policy, so consensus needs to be achieved via our dispute resolution processes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: I'm confused on what you are saying. Are you saying this is a policy dispute, a conduct dispute, or a content dispute? You mention all three, so I'm confused. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28 on April 27, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Effectively a content dispute, based on differing interpretations of policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange edits by IP

    I just reverted two bizarre edits by 174.197.198.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Although those are the only two edits in their history, in the past, edits like these tend to accumulate under dynamic IPs depending on each time they login, so I suspect there’s a lot more of them out there. I seem to recall there being a way to search for additional IPs in this range, but I’ve forgotten how to do it. Could someone look closer into this? I’m concerned there’s a lot more that need reverting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Viriditas, on the contributions page you can append /24 and search again to find everything by 174.197.198.X. There are other possible numbers (for example, WHOIS says that that IP belongs to a /18 range, which is pretty big), but /24 is usually a good starting point if you don't know anything about the IP range. creffett (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (for reference: I clicked the WHOIS link in the IP info you linked above, and the asn_cidr line says 174.197.192.0/18, which tells me that I can find anything from the range this IP belongs to by appending a /18 to the IP. There's a lot more technical detail on what these magic numbers I'm throwing at you mean, and I can tell you more on your talk page if you're interested, but this is the information you actually need to get the job done) creffett (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy link 174.197.198.78/18. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you could block the /18 w/o causing collateral damage. I would warn the user adequately. Two users-- and then anon block briefly if need be with account creation permitted. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing anything worth even warning for. These edits are not strange, but adequately explained and otherwise cromulent. This type of thing could be avoided if the content was properly referenced. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for weighing in. As I explained in my reverts, the adequate explanations you refer to were false. The information was neither an interpretation, nor an opinion, nor a peacock term as the original IP claimed. In the past, we’ve seen these types of strange edits before, from users who think they can make up a reason for deleting blue sky content, that in 99% of cases, is not unsourced as you claim, but fully sourced and explained in parent or daughter articles. Often times during the article creation process, duplicate content that is properly licensed gets moved around from article to article, with or without sources. I can’t say that’s what happened here, nor could I speculate as to who originally added the material without examining the page history, but this information is widely known by those familiar with the topic, which is why the edits appeared so strange to me. Per your excellent suggestion, I have gone back and made explicit the sources in at least one of the articles. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand much about ranges, but remember if you're blocking a big range to ask the checkusers (WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests) to see if there are registered users editing from the range, lest you accidentally block one or more good-faith contributors. Doesn't apply, of course, if you're doing an anon-only block. Nyttend (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell that to the two stewards who separately caught me up in sitewide blocks in 2018 without checking for possible collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how "and the musicians develop the concept through their use of space" is not an opinion, even if it's the opinion of those who created the thing. But whatever I guess. BTW, could someone explain to me why we're talking about the edit's of an IP, with no real idea of how sticky it is, on ANI where notification is required, as per all those big warnings and the IP's talk page was a red link until I informed them? Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent question. Here is the original edit. The content in question was originally added by another IP. In that context, it originally said, "It is a concept album, aimed at creating an oceanic atmosphere. Many of the song titles refer to marine biology or the sea, and the musicians develop the concept through their use of space and almost tidal dynamics." This is not an ideal paraphrase of the sources, but it is essentially correct. In this context, the phrase “use of space”, is a synonym and paraphrase of the common term “improvisation”. As we know, Miles Davis’ foray into modal Jazz was characterized by his use of space, his improvisational harnessing of the power of silence, the space between the notes, and Hancock, on this album, carries this tradition forward. The cited sources support this in many different ways. Blumenthal, as only one example, writes, “an aura surrounding the melodic material and the rhythms, particularly the ebb-and-flow washed of Tony William’s drums, that sustain the nautical conceit.” This aura, this melodic material, and this ebb and flow, is the hallmark of the wide space Davis popularized and that Hancock uses to great effect. Again, not a perfect paraphrase, but the IP got it right. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempted outing

    I'm reporting this here because it isn't actually WP:OUTING, just a poorly misplaced attempt. Oldschoolboxing (talk · contribs) left this comment on my talk page. If I was "Mr. Briggs", then this would be a clear violation of the aforementioned policy. Fortunately for the user in question, I'm not "Mr. Briggs", but I still believe some kind of warning is needed (from somebody other than myself) to prevent such actions in the future. – 2.O.Boxing 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Mr. Briggs" is an insult. --MrClog (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a new (and odd) one. Not really quite sure how that would relate to me reverting his edit, but ok (I think? Lol). Any idea who the "Benji" in that apparent insult would be? – 2.O.Boxing 21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as a google search of "Mr. Briggs insult" brings up nothing of the sort, and there's only one entry with three likes on urbandictionary, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree and say that was an attempt at outing. – 2.O.Boxing 21:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked them on the talk page. It may be an attempted outing, by the way (I had never head of the insult before either). We'll see what they have to say. --MrClog (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly suspect the urbandictionary entry may have been written by someone who disagreed with the grades his teacher gave him ... Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just looked through my edits and noticed one of my most recent edits before the comment on my talk page was to an article created by somebody known as Benji (not outing, he has the details on his user page. Bennyaha). He has two excuses to use now because of you pair anyway lol no bother. It's done no harm to anybody, might as well forget about it. – 2.O.Boxing 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Mr. Briggs may refer to a song by Blur, which quite literally says "Is deaf and dumb to what you say", and "He walked around in circles but only in his head". Although it might also not be what Oldschoolboxing was referring to. Kori (@) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks

    Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Ashton 29 is becoming increasingly problematic with his editing at multiple articles, reverting to blatant personal attacks on several occasions and edit-warring to get his preferred images into articles even when discussions have shown no consensus to include them. His edits have not been clear vandalism and his edit-warring has been drawn out over time so WP:AIV and WP:AN3 don't seem appropriate venues for reporting his actions but I have given him several warnings, including a final one and yet he still persists.

    Back in 2015, in a discussion now archived here, he proposed adding File:Gold Coast summer, Burleigh Heads Beach.jpg to Australia after his addition of the image was reverted by HappyWaldo. The obvious consensus of that discussion was that the original image was preferred. Despite that, he restored it to the article in February this year,[2] but that was reverted by an editor citing the 2015 discussion. Ashton 29's response was to edit-war the image back into the article, acknowledging the 2015 discussion when he said "that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people" in his edit summary.[3] It's ironic that he mentioned that the image "is more populated with people" as that was one of the issues that resulted in rejection of the image. This time I removed it stating "The discussion is still valid until another discussion overturns it. That there has been some time since you failed to have this image used doesn't mean you can force it back into the article.",[4] and Ashton 29 let the matter be until recently when he again restored it, this time without any edit summary.[5] It was immediately removed,[6] but, less than 2 hours ago the image was again restored without explanation.[7] Ashton 29 has made no attempt to open a new discussion about this image on Talk:Australia and seems content to continue trying to sneak the image back into the article. I raised this matter on his talk page 5 days ago but there has been no response other than the edit-warring.

    Ashton 29 has done this sort of thing at other articles. For example, his addition of a montage to the infobox at Hobart was reverted,[8] and his response was not to open a discussion but to simply edit-war, telling the other editor to "take it to the talk page",[9] even though the burden is his to gain consensus for its inclusion once it was opposed. Ashton 29 is strong proponent of montages and has been involved in attempts to include a montage at Sydney. A montage was proposed for this article last year but was opposed for various reasons. While discussion was still open in March, Ashton 29 added his own montage to the article.[10] That montage included images that had been rejected in previous discussions so it was reverted. (It shouldn't have been added while the discussion was underway anyhow!) Unfortunately, during that discussion another editor decided to resort to makes personal attacks so Ashton 29 decided he would too.[11] I removed it and warned him.[12] This obviously had no effect as several weeks later on April he added another, this time attacking both HappyWaldo and me.[13] I removed that one and warned him,[14] but his response was to restore the attack. Another editor subsequently made comment about the attacks.[15]

    Since then, Ashton 29 has had what can best be described as a temper tantrum, which includes encouraging another editor to join him,[16] (which seems a bit of meatpuppetry to me) and making a post that was essentially whining.[17] He then edit-warred at Hobart and restored his image to Australia as explained above. The final warning that I left on his talk page was posted 5 days ago but the edit-warring at Hobart and Australia, as well as the meatpuppetry have all occurred since then. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You singled out me and a few other editors who don't share the same opinions as you, for "personally attacking you". Now I'm not going to speak on behalf on everyone involved, but not once have i targeted, harassed or attacked you in a personal manner. I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress and if you can't accept criticism, then I'm sorry that's your fault, not mine. I'm also not going to sit around and watch you bully other editors into submission, just to get your way of controlling all edits being made to your own personal preferences.- Cement4802 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I invited you to this discussion was only because of this post on your talk page made by Ashton 29, which I mentioned above, and for no other reason. If you think it was because of personal attacks you must have a guilty conscience about something that you said. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me like the two edits you cite as personal attacks are uncivil, but do not constitute personal attacks. --MrClog (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter part of the comment "I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress..." from Cement4802 looks like a personal attack to me. From Ashton 29, I've copped "You can't keep peddling that pathetic tourist brochure excuse...get real." It wasn't the first time I've had something like that directed at me. A comment directed at another editor that uses the words "pathetic" and "get real" is obviously not conducive to polite discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, both the Cement and the Ashton comments appear to be personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To add fuel to the fire, even though he is fully aware of this discussion, Ashton 29 continues edit-warring instead of discussing. At Sydney, before I opened this discussion, he made a number of changes, one of which included replacing an image with what I believe is an inferior one. I reverted the image addition with the explanation "The caption is about the war memorial, not the park or the buildings around it. The bigger image of the war memorial is therefore preferred."[18] I should note that I made a mistake here and reverted all of his changes instead of just the image change so Ashton 29's subsequent reversion was quite appropriate given the circumstances. I then proceeded to revert the correct revision with an apology in the edit summary.[19] Instead of then discussing the image, Ashton 29 simply restored the image.[20] This is typical. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It really does appear that Ashton 29 does not care any more. Even though he knows there is no consensus to add a montage to the Sydney infobox, he just added one with the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait."[21] no attempt to discuss in the existing, still active talk page discussion, just add it to the article, which is clearly disruptive and he hasn't even bothered participating here. I think he just assumes that he is going to be blocked so he doesn't care. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not so much that I don't care, or that I "know there's no consensus", it's more that the consensus is really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors, namely AussieLegend himself, HiLo, and HappyWaldo. If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it. But because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. In fact, that's what you do. As others have pointed out, most of what I said are hardly personal attacks. They're uncivil, perhaps, but so is your constant denial of other people's valid contributions a montage on Sydney's page. You can't claim ownership and you fail to reach compromise. If you do not compromise, where is discussion going to get me? You've driven User:Cement4802 to give up on contributing to Sydney's page which is totally unfair. It appears you want me blocked, or afraid, so you do not have an opposition to the way you want a page to look. This is essentially an attack itself. Ashton 29 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it - You do know. There is an active discussion on the talk page about the montage that you have posted to just recently. You know about WP:BRD and yet you keep adding a montage while it is under discussion.
    because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. - Repeatedly adding the montage when its inclusion has been opposed and is under discussion is the very definition of edit-warring.
    It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. - Edit warring doesn't require constant reverting. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ashton 29 tells us just above that the arguments he doesn't like are "really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors..." Recycled? That's a strange description. I would happily have mine described as repeated, because they have never been refuted, but recycled is obviously getting personal, and pretty silly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that both Ashton 29 and AussieLegend are labelling everything any opinion they disagree with as a personal attack. I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low. All comments I have made are simply critical comments of Wikipedia related actions. I have zero interest in making comments about your personal attributes. I don't know any of the editors beyond Wikipedia, and nor do I care. All of the excuses you two make have been refuted time and time again, yet they're still relentlessly churned out and used to block out any discussion or ideas that you two disagree with - Cement4802 (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that post really meant to be about Ashton 29 and AussieLegend? HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cement4802: When somebody specifically names another editor and casts aspersions, that's a personal attack. I took great pains to point out on your talk page that you were only tangentially related to this discussion but you immediately took that to be claiming that you had personally attacked me, resulting in the rant above.[22] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cement4802: when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack. So is the last sentence above, right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AussieLegend I'd argue that your assumption that Ashton 29 "doesn't care" and that "he assumes that he's going to be blocked" falsely undermines and discredits his actual actions and credibility, without any evidence. That in itself constitutes as a personal attack. Also, HiLo48 describes the comments of Ashton 29 as "silly" which is again unconstructive and a personal attack. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing one's comments as "silly" is not a personal attack. El_C 10:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C Neither is the claim that someone is "holding up progress" I don't see you refuting that claim. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "[H]olding up progress" is also not a personal attack. El_C 10:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon it is. What does it add to the discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When you look at Ashton 29's recent edits there are a number of conclusions that you can come to, the most benign of which was that he doesn't care and expects to be blocked. Persistently adding content that he knows to be controversial, failing to discuss his edits knowing that he needs to discuss them as they've been opposed previously, and more than once, what would you call it? Of course he has now explained his reasons and it's now looking more like he is being deliberately disruptive, in my opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why I avoid editing Australian topics like the plague. Classic case of the small group of regular editors on a specific topic who appear to feel ownership over the topic so are extremely difficult to reach a consensus with. This infects every issue, great or extremely trivial. AussieLegend attempting to have an editor sanctioned for calling out this behaviour, in particular for describing HiLo48 as 'holding up progress', is quite frankly disgusting, particularly considering the many, many, many, many reports concerning HiLo48. Cjhard (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How is the plague an Australian topic? There's coronavirus everywhere. EEng 05:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't coronavirus everywhere, and I have a four (five, where does the time go?) year old discussion as the sole basis for this assertion. If you think this isn't the most productive way of engaging with other editors, I'll take you to AN/I! Cjhard (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: You might have been caught by a language issue. I believe that Cjhard meant "I avoid editing Australian topics like [I avoid getting] the plague", not that the plague was an Australian article. I can't find any evidence of Cjhard ever editing Sydney or its talk page and I really don't give anything else he said any credibility, especially the claim that coronavius isn't everywhere given it has affected 195 countries and killed 200,000 people, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, EEng, most Australians do have a sense of humour. --Cjhard (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt a necessity for survival in that arid and desolate antipodean wasteland. EEng 12:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, how dare you. Cjhard (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This Australian had a good chortle. --Blackmane (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Meanwhile, Ashton 29 continues his problematic editing, this time resorting to blatant canvassing. I found out that he had started a discussion at WP:DRN about the Sydney article. Despite the clear instructions that involved editors must be notified, Ashton 29 only notified 2 of the 9 listed editors and those two just happened to be editors who share his POV. At User talk:Cement4802 the notification was added to a discussion titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!" while at User talk:PhilipTerryGraham his notification was I am one of many users who agree with you in that Sydney's page needs a montage. It's a major global city yet it looks like a small town with just one lede montage image. I liked the one you put forward in January. Anyway, I'd like to hear from you here.[23] That is so far from neutral as to be clear and obvious canvassing. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion at WP:DRN has just been closed by an Admin, for the above reason and for some others. How much longer can Ashton 29 continue to waste the time of other editors and make personal attacks without consequence? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question given there's clear evidence of edit-warring, personal attacks, disruptive editing, forum-shopping and canvassing, all recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack through Labeling

    A user (User:Flix11) attacked me personally by reverting my edit and harshly saying some terrible stuff, Should this user to be warned or banned in order to prevent similar attack in the future? Thanks for any responseQzxv5 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Outdated issue reported by a clearly politically and ideologically non-neutral editor. Flix11 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flix11 This is an old issue, dating back to January, but we have been through this at length in the CVUA course - vandalism is not the same thing as POV editing, and even in the case of true vandalism you should not insult editors through edit summaries (I find it hard to read 'rebellious jihadi' as anything but a personal attack). I have no view on the content, but surely you know by now that you shouldn't conduct yourself like this? GirthSummit (blether) 13:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit I have refrained from that behavior lately. I do not know his agenda to up this issue after 3 months. Flix11 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flix11, if you check the user's contributions history, they've made hardly any edits since that revert - it's likely that they've only just noticed that you said that, there's no need to assume that they have an agenda in raising it. I've looked through your contribs over the last few weeks and I'm not seeing any recent edit summaries like that, but you and I have discussed that at length in the past, and this isn't the first time it's been raised here at ANI. It has to stop. GirthSummit (blether) 14:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit It has been stopped. Flix11 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "rv PoV edit" would've sufficed. Juxlos (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Flix11, that's bad enough to warrant revdeletion. It's maybe water under the bridge for some, but having this edit summary is a violation of the BLP and a host of other things. Girth Summit, I appreciate the coaching you've been doing--but if I were to see this right after it happened, I'd consider blocking for it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, in fairness to Flix11, their more recent contribs don't show any other edit summaries like this at all, I do think they have stopped doing it. Flix11, I hope you appreciate how serious this is. You say it has stopped, and I believe you - but it has stopped before, and then started up again. It needs to have stopped permanently, or people will lose patience. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Girth Summit. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Girth Summit, Drmies. I will keep my patience to the best of my ability. Flix11 (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator for Indigenous people in video games

    Issue resolved through discussion on article talk page. No action needed. GirthSummit (blether) 15:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hi, A group of us are trying to update the wikipage Indigenous people in video games as well as create pages for various Indigenous game designers. A user is wholesale deleting sections citing "self-promotion". We have reverted their changes but they continue to press even though it's obvious that this is a page in desperate need of updating. This user has a history of targeting new pages and users and deleting their content. We would like to request an admin for this page so that we can resolve any issues like this without bogging down our volunteers who are trying to help update information on Indigenous video games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByrneOuts (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ByrneOuts, there is a big red banner at the top of this page saying that you have to notify other editors when you raise a report about them here, but I'm not seeing anything on Creffett's talk page from you. For the convenience of others, the article is Indigenous people in video games. GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute, not an administrative matter. It should be resolved in the usual means of article talk page discussion. El_C 14:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with El C, I'm seeing nothing here that warrants any administrator intervention just yet, but to be clear, there is nothing wrong with what creffett has done. They removed a lot of content, explaining why they were doing so in their edit summary; rather than discuss it on the talk page, ByrneOuts and Dnakmigziwnan reinstated it. Creffett did not then revert you again, but started a talk page thread to discuss the matter. There is nothing wrong with creffett's conduct; the OP needs to engage in discussion, find a consensus, and then proceed accordingly. I'll notify Dnakmigziwnan of this discussion now. GirthSummit (blether) 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm WP:INVOLVED, of course (wow, I think this is the first time someone has reported me to AN/I!), but yup, content dispute. No objection to extra input to the discussion in case I did go overboard with my removals, there's a reason my edit summary said I was BOLDly removing - that's usually my way of saying "I think this big action is the right thing but am open to challenge if you think otherwise." creffett (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, hold on a sec: "this user has a history of targeting new pages and users?" That was a little uncalled for. creffett (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ByrneOuts - creffett makes a good point - why did you say that about them? Unevidenced accusations about other users' conduct are not acceptable - you should either provide evidence to support your accusation, or retract the statement. GirthSummit (blether) 15:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ByrneOuts, the way to retract a statement is far from obvious, so there's no blame attached to your not knowing how to do it, but it is to edit your previous comments to use the <strike></strike> tags, for example content that you want to retract. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been resolved with reasonable discussion on the article talk page, and I'm happy to forgive ByrneOuts's comment above as being out of frustration, so I recommend closing this. creffett (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring on "Vidya Vox" page

    Editor Sharon009 continues to make edits without explanation or sources to the "Vidya Vox" page, specifically editing the subject's birthdate/year. Myself and two other users have attempted to engage with this user both by initially reverting and asking for edit clarifications and sources as well as messaging the user on their Talk page, to no avail. The user has not responded to our attempts to engage or reach out whatsoever. I warned the user that if they continue doing so without engaging with us that I would post on a noticeboard and unsurprisingly they still are edit-warring. I don't want to break the three-revert rule and even if I reverted their edit, I am sure they'd continue this behavior. I'd appreciate your help! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Warn - User is only a day old, it would be better to warn the user than block the user in a day. Kori (@) 18:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay! How do I go about doing that? And if they continue with this behavior, what should be my next steps? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apoorva Iyer, The user has been warned, if Sharon continues their actions, then it would be a great idea for an administrator to block them, so the next step is to wait until an administrator comes in. Kori (@) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, thank you! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jbuigat's dubious edits on Cagayan-related articles

    • Put an edit note [24] which might have been the start of his editing pattern.

    Check his contributions on the following articles on the second bullet. I already did the reversion of his edits together with SciPunk (talk · contribs) who notified me of his editing behavior.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He has been editing these articles and adding unsourced terms to some of the articles, like this one. Kori (@) 18:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring by JzG

    Note: This was reposted here after mistakenly being posted at AN3.

    In July 2018, language was added to the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality by Contaldo80 that included the phrase "desecrated the Eucharist." In October of that year, Contaldo changed it to "desecrated a Communion wafer." I objected and reverted. A discussion ensued on talk and Contaldo, myself, and a third editor all agreed to use the word Eucharist. Stop the Church was then spun off in January 2020, more than a year after the issue had been settled. It included the word "Eucharist." On April 8th, Contaldo changed the text from Eucharist to wafer once again. Again, he was reverted and I asked him to gain consensus first.

    In the new discussion, Contaldo requested a third opinion. That brought in several new editors, including Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and JzG. On the talk page, Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, and I all favored using the word "Eucharist." Contaldo changed his mind and now prefers wafer, and JZG has offered several other suggestions, but opposes "Eucharist." It appears to me that there is a preference for Eucharist (four users supporting, two opposed) and perhaps a weak consensus for it. At best, there is no consensus. As I read WP:NOCONSENSUS, that means we should "[retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case, that means using the word Eucharist.

    As part of a series of edits which otherwise improved the article, JZG offered a new formulation for the disputed sentence. In JZG's world, his version is now the consensus version and I have to gain consensus to make any changes. He continues to base his edit warring on the claim that "Eucharist" is a "Catholic term of art," even after a majority of editors have explicitly rejected this assessment. While I was obviously OK with the old version, I was mostly OK with his new language, except for the fact that it didn't include the word Eucharist. As a gesture of good faith I kept most of what he said, but reinserted that one word. JZG reverted.

    On April 19th, after he again accused me of making a contested edit and needing consensus for it, I responded by saying "You know that isn't true. You introduced new text. I partially reverted. You edit warred your preferred version back in without coming to talk first. It is you who is making a contested change, not me." Two days went by where JZG was active elsewhere on Wikipedia but not on this article. Since he did not respond, I assumed he understood that I was correct. I reverted back to his language with my tweak. JZG swooped right back in and reverted to his preferred language.

    Discussion continued on talk. I again pointed out to him that it was him, not me, who was making a contested change and that NOCON says we leave the original language in place in these situations. His response was that "The status quo ante argiument (sic) does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given." I asked him where I could find that policy and he pointed me to WP:ONUS. As I said to him, I don't find anything like that in ONUS.

    JZG then again accused me of being the one to make a disputed edit. When I asked him to show me the consensus against Eucharist and again where it says to ignore NOCON after "after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given," he again went silent for two days. After another 48 hours where he was active on the project but not on this article, I reverted back to the last stable language. Only then did he become active on this article again, reverting to his preferred language. He also ignored, again, my questions about where there was a consensus against Eucharist and where it said to ignore NOCON.

    Tied up in all of this is a second disputed sentence in the lede. It is partially in dispute because it uses the word Eucharist as well, but also because I think it should remain in the lede, as it has since the article was created, whereas JZG does not. Without a consensus one way or the other (and with considerable sourcing to show that it was a major controversy during and after the event), my position is that it should stay. Again, after days of silence on talk I have readded the sentence, only to see JZG revert.

    I have offered on multiple occasions to work on language on talk, rather than edit war. I've even gone so far as to paste the text into talk so that we could work on something there. Those offers have all been ignored.s

    Also, while it is not directly related to his edit warring, JZG has continued to use language that he knows is offensive to Catholics, and continues to refer to me as one even after I told him I don't identify as a Catholic or any other religion on the project. Indeed, a review of my edits will show significant contributions to a number of articles about non-Catholic religious organizations and even more to secular topics. As pointed out to him, though, I do find acts of sacrilege and language that is deliberately offensive to any religious group to be beyond the pale. I think he owes Catholics and all tolerant minded people an apology.

    Finally, to preempt JzG's favorite defense of turning things around on me, yes, I was once topic banned. I have apologized, abided by the terms of it, tried to make amends, and tried to improve my editing. For those times where I have fallen short, I sincerely apologize once again. It in no way, however, excuses edit warring. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is bizarre. It raises the question whether Slugger O'Toole's TBAN was too limited. He has been aggressive with weakly sourced material at Harvard Extension School, an article that's experienced some of the same problems we saw at Knights of Columbus. It doesn't surprise me to see this occurring at other articles JzG is trying to clean up. I'm not familiar with those and can't comment further on the diffs. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slugger O'Toole repeatedly reverts to his preferred version of an article that contains a specific term of art used by some Catholics but has to be pipe-linked because it is not the common meaning of the word. I have tried numerous versions of compromises, his "compromise" is to insist that his preferred term of art must be used, and must be in the lead. He reverts from several different attempts to produce wording that more closely reflects the sources and removes issue of ambiguity between religious terms of art.
    SPECIFICO mentions the TBAN. Here's the debate. Same prolix style. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025 § Knights of Columbus
    Slugger O'Toole was topic-banned from Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for similar WP:OWN behaviour. It seems that when editing articles on his religion, harmony is achieved solely by Slugger O'Toole getting his own way. Needless to say, the constant reverts to reinsert his preferred content and refusal to accept any version of policy that does not encompass his preferred content going in, which were also a hallmark at the KofC article and a major contributor to the topic ban, are wearing and cause tempers to fray. Guy (help!) 22:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Even a casual review of the article history of article will show plenty of your edits which I have not reverted. I've praised you for improving the article repeatedly, including on your talk page. We've also seen a majority of other editors reject your wording, including Drasser who said "...JzG is being obtuse by trying to ignore the significance of the action through a poor vocabulary choice. It's not a "term of art," it's a religious practice." I'll also remind you, again, that it is you who has made a contested change to stable language, against consensus, not me. If a new consensus forms, I will gladly abide by it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be the same Drassow that referred to a cardinal as His eminence and likes to drop casual anti-Semitism on the regular. This is the person you choose to back you up?AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool dude, but eminence is still the correct way to address a cardinal, and adding a source is anti-semetic? Sounds like some laughable strawmen to me mate, and don't invalidate the correct vocabulary to use. Eminence is the correct way to address a cardinal just as the Eucharist is the correct way to refer to the item at hand. Drassow (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AlmostFrancis, I believe this is my first interaction with Drasser, as it is with you. I am not aware of either of your past histories. As noted above, however, he is not the only other editor who holds this position. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully this does not have to result in a new topic ban or an expansion of an old topic ban. Is Slugger O'Toole willing to walk back the behaviors that led to the original Knights of Columbus topic ban? Michepman (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Michepman, As I have said repeatedly, if a new consensus forms then I will respect it. I am not looking for trouble, only for longstanding consensuses to be respected. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm genuinely confused by the constant insistence by Guy that the simple term "Eucharist" is somehow verboten and must unconditionally be replaced by "wafer" or something else, editorial opinions of others be damned, I also don't understand what exactly is being advocated for in this post on this noticeboard. What's been going on appears to be a heated but unfortunately rather standard debate on how to phrase matters on an article about a political protest, which inherently will be controversial. This is clearly not WP:OWN behavior as other editors take both Guy's side in the debate as well as the position of Slugger O'Toole. I'd like to see a conclusion reached that's fair, but that likely requires more eyes by different editors on the page and not administrative efforts to sanction specific people. At least, that's my opinion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      CoffeeWithMarkets, I don't say it's verboten - in fact I added Eucharist in the Catholic Church as a "see also" because it does provide a specific perspective. I have explained on the Talk page why the specific phrase "desecration of the Eucharist" is confusing for a non-Catholic audience and indeed for a lot of Catholics. The Eucharist is generally seen in non-Catholic churches as the entire service of communion, and the protest was a disruption of this, so disruption of mass AND desecration of the Eucharist looks redundant unless you immediately read Eucharist in a specific way that most people simply don't.
      I'd note that I have tried a fair number of alternative formulations, and Slugger rejects all of them. Guy (help!) 07:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      CoffeeWithMarkets, My point is that there was a consensus. JzG made an edit that went against the consensus and was reverted. Instead of trying to develop a new consensus on talk, he simply keeps reinserting his preferred language back into the text. That seems like a classic case of edit warring to me. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The type of belittling seen in this edit summary - here - is harmfully antagonistic. We shouldn't be using language like that. We rightfully wouldn't tolerate editors referring to the Kaaba as a magic box. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Let's solve the crux of the problem. I propose the @Slugger O'Toole: is banned from adding article content sourced to primary sources or sources closely related to the article subject without prior consensus on the article talk page. This applies to any article on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SPECIFICO, That's not what is at issue in this case so I fail to see how it would solve the crux of any problem. Also, I wasn't going to address it, but I will now point out that Harvard Extension School gained Good Article status with largely the same sources as it has today. The independent editor who certified it as a GA didn't raise a single concern about the sources. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I'll put a notice on the talk page there and we can get some more views from that article's editors. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Slugger O'Toole (former user name Briancua) has added over 50 assertions to the Harvard Extension School article that are sourced to 100th anniveresary commemorative volume published by the Extension School and written by its Dean. That's not the only such reference, just one that's easily identified. The article is full of promotional or UNDUE content of this kind. It's the same thing that happened at the Knights of Columbus article. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO, Yes, I did so seven years ago. I think I did so with care, but have already offered to work with you to improve them. I'll ask again: would you like to work on it with me? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am only here because I see you making the same mistakes to this day, even after the Knights of Columbus TBAN. And apparently you think the Harvard Extnsion School article desrved the GA, even loaded with UNDUE promotional self-sourced content? I looked at the review. If I thought anything would change without a sanction, I certainly would not have proposed it. That's all I'll have to say here. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO, I suppose that's your prerogative, but I'd rather work collaboratively to improve the article. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Proposed excessive sanction is not even tangentially related to the issue at hand. Nice try, SPECIFICO. Cjhard (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a joke? - What exactly is the point of bludgeoning a user for taking a position held by multiple editors in a content dispute? Where does this notion that it will somehow magically stop the dispute come from? Why is our time being wasted by this "proposal"? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, it's rather astonishing to have this general discussion constantly pretending as if we can't go and look pages ourselves. It's not as if it's difficult. We have eyes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowball proposals that have the sole purpose of intimidating the targeted editor are sadly over-tolerated here. Cjhard (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I'm an uninvolved user but this seems like a ridiculous sanction. There's clearly no consensus, so why are we not following WP:NOCON and sticking with the original wording of the article? I have to agree with Cjhard, this seems like a sad attempt at intimidation that'll do nothing to solve the actual problem. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 18:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Not involved, either, but a wide-ranging topic ban on the OP for acts unrelated to the current issue is the wikipedia equivalent of driving a tack with a twenty-pound maul. Come back with a suggestion that addresses the issue at hand, please. --loupgarous (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption by IP

    IP has been partially blocked from the page for 3 months by Mazca. SemiHypercube 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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


    This is a simple one. Static IP, 172.127.114.212 (talk · contribs) continually edit-warring over their preferred version of the plot section of Shazam! (film), continually bloats the plot with the same irrelevant detail despite multiple talk page warnings and being reverted by myself and a couple other editors (example 1, example 2). The IP has done this half a dozen times or more over the past week and a half and has never attempted to engage in conversation despite multiple warnings (has never made an edit in talk space, in fact). Since it's a static IP, they can easily be blocked to curb the disruption. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As it's a static IP and seems devoted primarily to disrupting that one page, I've just done a 3-month partial block to prevent them editing that particular page. If their disruption extends anywhere else, by all means let me know and I'll make it a full block. ~ mazca talk 15:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by Pincrete in a MH17 article (Second request)

    Recently I made my first AN/I request regarding disruptive editing by Pincrete. It was closed without action. I kindly ask to check on this Pincrete's reverting. He claims that the reason is that the transcript of the Russian MoD briefing "was the primary referred to". Remarkably, yesterday, he had no complaints about those facts and that primary source. Moreover while editing the article he was referring to the DSB report which is a primary source as well! But he didn't delete those facts cited from a primary source (DSB report) [25][26][27]! Check, please, also the in-article "Background" section which is written using a primary source. I believe that at least the above mentioned disruptive deletion is one of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. So why is he allowed to use primary source (DSB report) and at the same, in his opinion, I'm not allowed to use primary source (Russian MoD report/transcript)? Please take action, because, in my opinion, his actions go beyond the constructive resolution of disputes.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It was closed as no one thought there was any action to take, relaunching this will just look disruptive. As well as you have a DRN running on the same subject (just different users) [[28]]. I get strong vibes of not here did not here that and forum shopping.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed I think (as they did at one time edit other topics) a TABN, its clear in this area they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)

    Oh dear me! I request an immediate close to this overtly frivolous piece of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Here is the DRN which Александр Мотин filed today. And here the total-waste-of-everybody's-time ANI brought against me barely a week ago. Talk page will show that I've been doing my best to help this editor, despite neither their English, nor their mastery of policy being very sound.

    Should anyone want a more detailed response on any point, please ping. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DRN request was filed on a different subject. I insist that Pincrete's edits were disruptive. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Because he is not, your first diff the source is BBC News, you do understand what wp:primary means?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually in the first diff, both sources (already in place btw), were secondary. My main change there is to tale out a paragraph break in order that the various findings 'run together'. I also added 'Ukrainian' to clarify which authorities were responsible for closing the airspace ... which is ironical since the main thrust of Александр Мотин's editing is that Ukr is at fault. Other changes in other diffs (like changing 'revealed' to 'stated', 'aerooplane' to 'airplane'} are so standard, that you'd think Александр might thank me, not report me. Pincrete (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I also kindly ask administrators to pay attention to the fact that a group of opposing editors attacks me on many pages at once (for instance, on the article's talk page, on my personal talk page [29][30], on the FTN page [31], on the DRN page). It seems to be a WP:CTDAPE case. Please also pay attention to what Pincrete calls my edits "almost gibberish", "Kremlin-ophilic" and talks about "my motives" [32]--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, your motives are indeed questionable, I suggest you read wp:nothere.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following sources are used in the background section BBC, the Guardian, Voice of Russia, Information Telegraph Agency of Russia, NTV News, The Diplomat...and it is at that point I gave up trying to find the primary source the user is talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The primary source referred to is probably the DSB final report, which I have been prepared to use during the last week, especially when it is a 'complementary' rather than 'main' reference. I have been very careful to not interpret it at all. Александр, not I was the one to start to use it extensively, and IMO, very carelessly. I've also tried to get discussion going on talk as to what the limits of use should be here and here - mainly because the report was being mis-used in several ways, which Александр seems either unable, or unwilling to understand. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Александр Мотин: stop editing your comments after they have been replied to.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal Boomerang block

    This has been wasting a few users time now for over a week, whatever use Александр Мотин may have cannot out weigh this massive disruption. A slow edit war, attacks on other users, forum shopping, and god knows what else is way to much to indicate this user is worth retaining.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a huge timesink and must be stopped asap. All these conspiracy theories have been already discussed at the talk page in 2014 and rejected.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: Could you, please, point to a "conspiracy theory" since you seem to call my edits like that? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ukrainian deserter, Rostov radar record, the theory of Ukrainian Buk. Unless I am mistaken, you have also forgotten to mention the fighter photo, I am sure you will be able to find Russian sources for this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Russian primary radar data was examined by JIT as it was reported by JIT. Where do you see conspiracy? What "theory of Ukrainian Buk" are you talking about? What kind of conspiracy about Ukrainian deserter are you talking about since his identity and belonging to the Ukrainian army were confirmed by Ukrainian servicemen [33]? I really don't understand what you want to say by that. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I am not here to debate this for the tenth time. My time is valuable, and I am not going to waste it for going through all this propaganda bullshit again. My argument is that nobody wants to do it, and the solution which would save the most time to the community is to block your account asap.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So why are you calling my edits a "propaganda bullshit"? And why should I be blocked? Because you have no time to explain? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you many users time trying to explain to you why the sources you are using are not neutral are pushing Russian propaganda that the international community have long since proven false and rejected. Because you are not here to build an encyclopedia but push Russian propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut the WP:PA. MiasmaEternalTALK 22:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the accusation I am making, how do I make it without saying what I think they are doing? You are aware they have been blocked by the Russian wiki for this self same fight?Slatersteven (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right. Here at ANI we comment on contributors, not on content. EEng 00:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, fair enough. My mistake. MiasmaEternalTALK 04:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have partially blocked Александр Мотин from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, indefinitely. El_C 00:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the unblock request which reads: "But why?" — that's it, that the entire unblock request! El_C 00:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They've now converted the unblock request into a query pinging me. El_C 01:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that resolution, which I endorse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this will hopefully resolve the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish they had just listened to me when I asked them to just drop it. No I do not think it will work, but we can but hope.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say that a permanent block seems draconian to me. The topic of this article is contentious. Reviewing the editorial assumptions is an integral and necessary part of editing this article. I noticed that Александр Мотин got too eager, and edited in spite of the established consensus. Never the less, a warning to adhere to wp:agf and wp:consensus may have been sufficient. Heptor (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but they still (as their appeal shows) they do not get what they were doing wrong (I think the above discussion demonstrates that as well). I think it is clear a warning would not have worked.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Have they been unblocked [[34]]?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, editors are not hostile to you. Hell I even warned you to drop this, how is that hostility? If I had wanted you blocked I would have launched an ANI, not let you be stupid enough to re-open one you had already been told was way off the mark. You have literally done nothing but waster time on this issues for over well (it might be close to two) a week.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be some confusion (and no, not just me) as to whether or not the partial ban prohibits editing the articles talk page. I think we need clarification on this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarified, they can edit the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The request was for a block, not a topic ban. A topic ban (by virtue of a block from the article talk page, too) may yet be enforced. Let's keep this report open for a while longer so that, if necessary, any further evidence to that effect could be compiled and submitted. Thank you. El_C 15:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think many of us assumed any block would also be to the talk pager as well, nothing I can find says this cannot be the case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. I understand many assumed a holistic restriction, but I used my discretion. Because I am lenient and hoped it would serve as a wake up call to Александр Мотин, as unlikely as that prospect may be. El_C 16:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was at the stage just before asking for the boomerang. I tend to not ask for blocks until my good faith is exhausted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block requested to deal with persistent vandalism at Nick at Nite

    Edits from this range have been vandalizing Wikipedia articles since December. Initially, vandalism from this range consisted of the user randomly changing dates in articles ([37], [38], [39], [40])

    Since March, this user has been mainly targeting the Nick at Nite article, changing airtimes ([41], [42]). Over the last few weeks, this IP has consistently been editing the Nick at Nite article by amending the lede to falsely state that Cartoon Network is "the nighttime branding of Adult Swim" (which is false; Adult Swim is the nighttime branding of Cartoon Network) ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47])

    The user also did at least one similar edit at Adult Swim (falsely stating that Nickelodeon is "the nighttime branding of Nick At Nite", which is obviously false given the name of the block "Nick at Nite)[48].

    You can get an idea of the user's disruption most easily by looking at the edit history of Nick at Nite (link); most of the edit history of the last month consists of the editor making edits and other editors reverting them.

    In this IP user's defense, it doesn't seem like anyone warned them about their behavior until this past April[49]. I also gave a set of escalating warnings at User_talk:2600:8805:1400:4CE0:BDE4:174D:461:1380.

    Looking through the relevant edits, it doesn't look like there would be any collateral damage if the /64 was blocked, so I'm requesting that range be blocked temporarily. Much thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the problems with sourcing the time is it's literally just them looking at the on-screen logo at the time of day; I've restored the usual proper time range of the block (it was way too early for at least a few months, probably because of other past IP disruption making it seem like it was); probably best to institute protected changes on this page rather than playing IP Whack-a-Mole here. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be fine with me. Much thanks for making the other corrections to the page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the IP is at it again. As soon as a frustrated user corrected the false information, the IP came back and restored the false information within 20 minutes. While I would be OK with page protection, I still believe a block on the /64 is in order as the person behind the range has targeted other pages in the past, as I noted in my diffs above. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet again... Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the users monitoring this situation since yesterday, I think the best course of action to take ASAP would be to lock the page to unregistered users. That would immediately solve the ongoing vandalism issue and then we can move forward with potential blocks. Popfox3 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling

    An IP editor has been pushing fringe views at Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for some while, as I think we're all aware. I don't know the CIDR subnet and they flatly refuse to register an account, which has been a cause of drama in and of itself.

    I would say that [50] is past the point of "enough already".

    "None of this is the behavior of a normal Wikipedia editor. But it is exactly the behavior one would expect from a person who is planning, sometime in the future, on writing an article for an alt-right website about how many Wikipedia policies he was able to get away with violating by making an alternate account that pretended to be a leftist. Wikipedia's admins should be embarrassed that they've allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with this tactic, especially if it's allowed to continue even now that I've pointed it out."

    This in reference to NightHeron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor in good standing. I mean, seriously, in that venue, to suggest that another editor is faking extreme liberal bias because they are really alt-right? Seriously?

    I propose a topic ban. Guy (help!) 23:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given that the topic is under arbitration enforcement, should this not be at WP:AE? By the way, the IPv6 range is massive, something like a /40, unsurprising as it's Verizon cell. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Black Kite as a general rule while Verizon ranges are massive they typically have relatively low collateral. It’s usually one person causing a ton of disruption because of the dynamic nature of the range, and in most of the “troublesome” Verizon ranges I’m familiar with its 1-2 people. I’ll also give my standard bit about people in the United States and Western Europe being able to create accounts on other ranges fairly easily. Not necessarily advocating for a block at this time, but Verizon ranges this wide have been blocked before over a limited number of bad actors. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW it's clear from looking at the edits at Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 that there are at least 2 active editors, one who is obsessed with r&i and another who cares about hyphens and dashes. (They aren't the same because sometimes edits at different IPs interleave.) Maybe 3, if the college football person is different from the dash person. (I personally think the case for topic-banning this particular individual is strong, as is the case for selective blocks from r&i pages, but I have slightly mixed feelings about blocking college football guy and dash guy just for having the bad luck to share a range with r&i guy. Although I suppose they could always just create accounts.) --JBL (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry if I wasn’t clear: I was saying there’s usually one or two bad actors and a relatively low amount of collateral on Verizon compared to some other ranges this size. There obviously will be some collateral for any range block. The question is if it’s worth it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, you were clear -- I just thought others might be interested in the specifics of the present situation (at least, to the extent that they can be gleaned just by looking over the recent edit history for that range). --JBL (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I'm no expert in these things, but I think the range is 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. If you look at the Talk:, User talk:, and Wikipedia: namespace contribs on that range, there has been a great number of posts, including a lot of canvassing on user talk pages, all aimed at having the article promote a particular POV as mainstream. I agree the ARCA post against NH (who has probably been the editor who has engaged with this IP range the most) that the OP quotes was, as NH put it, a cockamamie conspiracy theory. A topic ban is long overdue but how do you enforce that against an IP range? After reviewing the contribs of that range in all namespaces, I'm in favor of a range block despite the large range (because I see almost no constructive editing on that range), or any lesser sanction. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dangit Levivich, I help teach you how IP ranges work, and this is how you repay me? Constructively using that knowledge before I can swoop in and show off? creffett (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's his full name -- Dangit Levivich? Fits. EEng 04:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously this is long overdue. A partial block on the article Race and intelligence and its talk-page would be a minimal step toward improving the situation, but the level of shit-stirring by the IP (trying to hand-pick admins to close RfC, trying to goad at least a half-dozen other editors into going to AE, etc.) is really extreme and so I would support something stronger. --JBL (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done this. El_C 01:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't do indefinite blocks on IP ranges.... I'll change it 3 months, which is plenty long enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It is not plenty. This block is for one, single article talk page. An indefinite duration is fine. El_C 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the IP's posts to ARCA about editing this topic area because they are colleagues with Gerhard Meisenberg [51] [52] are tantamount to an admission of COI in this topic area. (Or at least WP:RGW.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amazing, according to the article, Meisenberg "is a director, with Richard Lynn, of the Pioneer Fund" and those us familiar with the R&I debacle understand that means the IP should be indefinitely topic banned, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, good spot. I think that removes all doubt. Guy (help!) 09:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TFBCT1

    The issue has been resolved following a brief discussion between the editors, no need for ANI at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 01:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An uninvolved editor just closed Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing with a weak consensus on proposal 5 which reads "Keep and rank all reliably-sourced entries, per general Wikipedia policy. Bring this article in line with national lists of oldest people." I have been reverted more than 3 times now for re-ranking the names on the list accordingly by this one editor. He/she opposed the proposal, and reverted with this rationale: "strong recommendation for further discussion, adding any other source other than GRG may need additional editors consensus" The problem with that is the closer wrote "editors should discuss the reliability of sources either here or at RSN before adding them", as in the sources already added in the article are assumed to be already reliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty sure longevity us under DS. EEng 00:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That it is, I am looking for a solution as I was trying to implement a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer wrote “ There is a weak consensus for proposal 5, which would allow for the use of sources that generally meet Wikipedia's reliability standards to be used to support the addition of ranked entries to this list. Examples of such sources were not discussed here in detail, so while this opens the door for the use of sources other than the Gerontology Research Group, editors should discuss the reliability of sources either here or at RSN before adding them, and it is entirely possible that the GRG will continue to be the only source able to win the approval of enough editors to be used here.“ Knoledgekid87 did not follow this at all with discussion before adding them on the talk page or an RSN and took it upon themselves just to add them contrary to the decision of the RFC.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no issue with the sources already present in the article though, the proposal was in favor of "all reliably-sourced entries". You keep missing the "before adding them" part for new sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be completely not understanding this then. You’re saying the closer only meant for future entries, not current ones. My apologies, I will change it back.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is what the closer meant, and no worries it happens. Nobody here wants a badly sourced article so as long as the sources used are reliable then it can be ranked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit has been undone and this can now be closed as a misunderstanding. Sorry for the heated exchange. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Fabulouers and User:Courrecx

    Both have been  Blocked and tagged as sockpuppets by Callanecc. SemiHypercube 13:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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


    Fabulouers and Courrecx are both newly created users whose edits to date are overlapping vague/non-policy-based keep nominations at various AfDs and the recently-created article Don Manson. I suspect there is some sockpuppetry, possibly related to the now-blocked LTA Cabeyi, per this diff, this diff, and the !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marly (Almir Leka). I could use another set of eyes on this. --Kinu t/c 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging TonyBallioni as the one who blocked the LTA account mentioned above. --Kinu t/c 07:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinu, it seems we saw the same stuff and chose different venues - I raised an SPI case - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akelrimla. Cabayi (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. I considered taking it to SPI originally, but figured someone else would eventually do so if my logic was indeed sound. --Kinu t/c 08:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Imitation account CanterburyHead

    Indeffed by Zzuuzz. SemiHypercube 13:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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


    Towards the end of last year ago I reverted an edit by OrtusOrigin (talk · contribs) on the article Chai River Reservoir which they said was based on their personal experience of fishing with their grandparents. I reverted it due to there being no sources for the statement. Fast forward to just over a week ago and OrtusOrigin was blocked indefinitely for vandalism by Keith D (this was completely separate to this point.) Anyway a few days ago my reversion on the Chai River Reservoir was reverted by an IP, 138.75.140.6, so I reverted it as block evasion of OrtusOrigin. They reinstated 4 days later and I reverted again, same reason. Now today a brand new account entitled CanterburyHead (talk · contribs) (clearly based on my account name) was created, reverted my edit, and posted profanity on their user page. Clearly block evasion, clearly an account created just to harass me. I could just outright block them, but there could be an interpretation of involved going on here. So I'm asking someone else to do the necessaries. Note: I have not posted a notice on their page in order to deny them the attention they're clearly after. Canterbury Tail talk 11:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Canterbury Tail: an abundance of caution indeed. But I think, per WP:INVOLVED, an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role...is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor, and as such, wrt blocking them any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. All the best! ——SN54129 11:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup and normally wouldn’t hesitate. However once it became account impersonation I decided to back off. Canterbury Tail talk 11:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I can understand that either thing can be done. I've blocked the account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks zzuuzz. Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP edits done without following Wikipedia sourcing style

     – SemiHypercube 15:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheers! I would like some advice on a problem with some IP edits that I have no idea how to address. There are some IPs, apparently based on Tunisia, who constantly edit the numbers of religious (often Jewish) demographics of North African countries. Examples of those articles are Religion in Algeria, History of the Jews in Algeria, Religion in Tunisia, History of the Jews in Tunisia, History of the Jews in Libya, Religion in Morocco, Tunisian people, Tunisia, Maghrebi Jews, and a single one in American Jews. It's not like they are necessarily done in bad faith, but the MO is to simply edit a number, leaving the source in the comment, sometimes editing the same number twice in a row using different, conflicting sources, with some of those of poor quality. I ended up following all the pages above to try to keep an eye on those edits and although some of those edits proved to be constructive (like correcting numbers badly cited from the source), most of them go against the editing style of Wikipedia, ignore the already present sources, and end up making the History and even the displayed data of those pages a complete mess. I (and other users) have tried to contact those IPs in the Discussion page to explain how sources should be handled, but to no avail, as the active IPs eventually stop editing and new similar ones appear with the same MO already described. I don't want to simply revert these edits, but it's getting hard to follow them and check every time how reliable the new numbers might be. I would appreciate if someone could advise me what's the best course of action on how to deal with this. Thank you for your time. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sarilho1: I think WP:ANI might be the best pick, since this is a conduct issue (I might even move this thread there) SemiHypercube 15:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SemiHypercube: Hi! I was unsure what was the best place to place this. If that's indeed the best pick, please do move it. I'm sorry for the hassle. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarilho1:  Done moving the thread SemiHypercube 15:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarilho1:I'm not seeing an obvious solution to this, unfortunately. As I'm sure you also suspect, these edits are almost certainly coming from one user, but across quite a lot of IP addresses. Without the user creating an account or choosing to engage, it seems fairly pointless communicating on the user talk pages when it's likely you won't catch the same user again. They're mostly in two fairly tight ranges (196.235.26.87/17) and 196.229.227.108/17), both appearing to be standard, dynamic Tunisian mobile phone IPs. However, the disruption is neither serious enough, nor frequent enough, to make me think blocking those ranges is going to be very helpful - even in those tight ranges only about half the activity seems to be that user, so it's a lot of collateral damage versus minimal real benefit. Just continue checking what references you can, and reverting ones you can't verify - it's better to lean towards removing things we're not sure about. As the pages are fairly low traffic, we can contemplate activating pending changes protection on some of them, as is already the case on Tunisia, but the edits are pretty sparse. The user seems fairly well-intentioned, I just can't think of a particularly good way of getting their attention. ~ mazca talk 16:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits and attack - block edit privilege

    A user Kyle smith2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2 weeks fresh, and safe to say a disgruntled fan (pardon his writing), has been doing disruptive edits and posted an attack (sort of) on my talk page accusing me of being biased, when clearly he is blithely unaware of BLP guidelines. I have posted warnings on his talk page and have explained, best as I could, the improvements I have done on the article he is attacking in terms of peer review, copy-edits and source review from Wikipedia contributors since 2017.

    Obviously, the edits this user has made on this page Sarah Geronimo fall under NPOV, and his attack on my work to improve Regine Velasquez's article, is a blow on his inability to proficiently and competently improve his edits based on Wiki guidelines and has resorted to discrediting another page instead.

    Although he does make a good point, I am a fan, but isn't that what this platform is about, everyone dedicating their time on improving articles are FANS of the subjects/topics they are writing about. BUT we have to conform to the guidelines (as is the use of PR, Source spot checks, C/Es), instead of attacking someone's talk page.

    Among other disruptive edits this user has done:

    Pseud 14 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTHERE

    Indeffed by El C. Bishonen | tålk 16:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Ulughu Khan started editing barely 5 days ago and has been already warned by 6 different admins not to engage in disruptive editing, copyvio, original research or else he would face a block or topic ban.[53][54][55][56][57][58] After all that he has finally got edits like this to offer. The user is absolutely WP:NOTHERE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can second that complaint (as an editor who has reverted some of their edits). Despite the various warnings and advice that can be seen on their talkpage and attempts at discussion at Talk:Vedas, the user seems intent on edit-warring and using wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Pretty disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:HAL333

    I think we're done here. Perhaps Floquenbeam and Vanamonde were more even-handed than I were, so I will deffer to their comments in the summary. That said, words have power, so it's best to exercise due caution when it comes to skirting the line between simple rudeness and things which are difficult to take back once put in print. Hope to see both editors continue to improve the encyclopedia with great content work and I wish them both success in their submissions and refinement. El_C 21:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yesterday, F. Scott Fitzgerald passed WP:GAN. In my opinion, the review was lacking and it appeared to have passed simply so the reviewer could add it to their Wikicup tally. I offered a very lengthy review, here, of why I thought it was not worthy of being a GA. The article was so bad that I only managed to complete one section. I left a note for the reviewer voicing my concerns that they were passing a low-quality article, simply to boost their qualifying statistics for the Wikicup. Then along comes HAL333, the nominating editor, who issues this personal attack on Starsandwhales's talk page. I revert it, but it gets put back by Starsandwhales. Meanwhile, back on the article talk page, HAL333 makes another personal attack. They then publicly deride my work (also see previous diff), referencing some of the FAs on my user page that I have worked on. When I correct Hal333 about them not being "circus freaks", but rather music hall artistes, HAL333 finally issues this piece of casual xenophobia. Not good, especially since I took a lot of time to review an article they had worked on with a view to improving it. This was not something I was obliged to do, but I chose to, dispute our differences, in order to work alongside HAL333 in order to help improve it, at least to GA standard. HAL333 then tells me that they are "done with this conversation". Clearly not "done with [the] conversation", HAL333 pings me today and offers this very curt and evidently ungrateful response to my review. I reply appropriately about the article, not the editor, and ask them to leave me alone and to stop pinging me. HAL333 ignores my plea and pings me again, almost immediately after.

    No stranger to these shores myself, I resent having to post here at all as it is quite often the most unproductive time of my day. I fling it, so I can take it. People are free to criticise the articles I work on, and even to challenge my reviews, respectfully. I don't even mind being called all the names under the sun. I do, however, object to being subjected to xenophobia and harassment. That, in my book, is well and truly crossing the line. CassiantoTalk 16:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to defend my actions.
    • Throughout these two discussions, I admit that I was was too harsh. But I did not initiate this interaction and it was Cassianto, who first began attacking Starsandwhales. I did not feel obliged to be courteous to an editor who was impolite from the get-go.
    • I understand that Cassianto has a sort of "style" of interacting with editors, so I didn't take offense to his jabs. Such as when he said it was "hilarious watching (me) make a fool of (my)self" or when he described something which I did intentionally as a "schoolboy error." I apologize for attacking the merit of his articles, but I would like to point out that he did this to me first and I was simply countering. He first told me to "Go back to fiddling around with (my) boring Epstein article. He also told me to go back to "obsessing over infobox discussions". I find that peculiar as whenever I did it that, he told me that I should make contributions to attention-needing articles, which I did. Cassianto is a more experienced editor, but I don't appreciate his attacks on the quality of my editing. I am still somewhat of a novice and I'm trying to become good at creating GA articles.
    • Since our past interactions on the Stanley Kubrick article, I have tried to mostly avoid Cassianto. Let sleeping dogs lie, right? But I believe there is an element of wikihounding. Back in March, he reverted one of my edits on an obscure Polish surname disambig. That was not an improvement and I can't imagine him visiting that article purely by chance. As Cassianto admits, he has no interest in the F. Scott Fitzgerald article, he only came "when (Starsandwhales) congratulated HAL333 (on what, I don't know)."
    • I strongly reject the accusation of xenophobia, or racism as they initially called it. As I previously pointed out, my own father is British and if one were to visit my userpage, you would find my admiration for many British people and things, including Arthur C. Clarke, Monty Python, Mr. Bean, the BBC series Walking with Dinosaurs, and the expatriate Stanley Kubrick. I don't think my comment was a direct attack on the British people, but rather on their vernacular, hence "pompous semantics". I meant no ill will, it was meant more as a humorous prod, and I apologize if they found it upsetting.
    • The only reason I returned to the conversation is that I made a DYK nomination for Fitzgerald, but the DYK won't be reviewed until Cassianto's grievances are resolved. I feel that if Cassianto involves himself with the GA process, he should finish helping me improve the article or at-least give some closure to his comments. At this point, all he has done is interrupt the DYK process, simply because he has a dislike for me. I would appreciate if we can get back to ensuring that the Fitzgerald article is good for GA, as I tried to do this morning. Thanks. ~ HAL333 17:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I understand that Cassianto has a sort of 'style' of interacting with editors" -- more bad faith. CassiantoTalk 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a Brit, I don't mind being accused of using pompous semantics if anything that I have said can even remotely reasonably be interpreted in that way, but the difference between music hall and circus is enormous in any culture. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good for you, but we're not talking about you, and the fact you see no problem with it, being British, doesn't make it all okay. If I'd have singled out Africans, Indians, or the Chinese, for example, for the same, I wonder how long it would be before I was blocked, irrespective of support from fellow countrymen? CassiantoTalk 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm finding it difficult to understand your reply. Surely it was HAL333, not you, who equated music hall with circus? If this is the sort of reply that I get when supporting your position then I hate to think what would happen if I opposed you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's clear what part of your comment I was opposing. CassiantoTalk 18:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I can only conclude that you don't understand the word "if". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city. El_C 18:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No great surprises in most of this. While the majority of people enter the WikiCup in the spirit in which it is meant, there are always those who will shortcut their way through the process. It's either that, or they are just not good enough to write their way out of a wet paper bag; I suspect we've got a combination of both here. When the battlefield approach and insults are expected from Hal33, it is a bit tiresome to see them yet again. Calling stage performers "20th century circus freaks"?? FFS - that language is a step away from a much darker and out-moded side of thinking of other people by genetic make up. - SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that implication, but I am not a eugenicist. I had no intention of offending Cassianto and I apologize if I did. From my past interactions, such as when he suggested that I was a snowflake[59], I figured he was someone with a thick skin. ~ HAL333 18:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I'm such an arsehole, HAL333, that I volunteered off my own back to review an article you were connected with. I didn't have to. I didn't need to. I chose to, despite you being involved in it. We've butted heads at Kubrick, sure, but without any vindictive intention, I came to you to help out on an article you seem to care about. Why did I f*cking bother! CassiantoTalk 19:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cassianto, I just want to state that I hold no grudges against you. I was just a little irked by your blunt message to Starsandwhales. We're both a little hot-headed and that can be bad recipe. I say we both try to be more gentle in our interactions and I would really appreciate if you could help me with that article. ~ HAL333 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we can close this with a warning to HAL333. Cassianto is, indeed, often harsh, but is also incredibly productive. But as far as harshness go, I think HAL333 has crossed the line several times with at least two unfortunate mentions ("Brits," "circus freaks") as well as pinging Cassianto right after they've asked HAL333 to not ping them again — you cannot complain about hounding when you do that. Also, Cassianto is not obliged to do any further content work whatsoever in this regard. They are entitled to offer critical input into editorial processes as they see fit, per se. El_C 18:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Chill. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interest of even-handedness, we should either warn both or warn neither. Both Cassianto and HAL333 behaved like children during the Fitzgerald discussion and I can't believe anyone is really buying that Cassianto was genuinely offended by the 'pompous semantics' remark. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Stupid comments like this is why ANI has the name that it's got. CassiantoTalk 19:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Stupid comments like this are why I struggle to believe that you've suddenly joined up with the PC police. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're efforts are best spent adding {{CatAutoTOC}} templates rather than making troll-like remarks here. CassiantoTalk 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it somewhat hypocritical that Cassianto takes offense to my (admittedly unfair) slight against his article interests, yet he proceeds to attack another editor for how they choose to contribute. ~ HAL333 19:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) ~cough~ AGF ~cough~ SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The second sentence of this thread contains a blatant assumption of bad faith. Get back to me when you've scolded Cassianto for that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice BATTLEFIELD approach you've got going here. When someone tries to dampen down the fires, is there any need to pour petrol on? Mind-blowingly crass piece of idiocy.... (And as for "stop attempting to abuse power than you don't even have"... you'll have to do better than that to get a rise. - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks a whole lot more like you tried to hide my remarks after myself and HAL333 drew attention behavior from Cassianto that you didn't want highlighted. If you are really trying to de-escalate, you're doing as poor a job as possible. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the behavioral aspects: Everyone (and I don't mean just HAL333, though I do include him too) just stop being rude, and it's probably best for everyone to disengage with the people who have angered them in this thread. Regarding the content/GA aspect: there are mechanisms (WP:GAR, it looks like) to challenge a GA. Since I wouldn't know a GA if it came up to and stamped a big green plus sign on my forehead, I'll leave it to you all to read that process and figure out how it works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add to what Floquenbeam said; a lot of people are being bloody rude at the moment, and there's no cause to be. There's not much purpose served in examining in detail who was more rude and sooner. A fair number of Cassianto's objections are ones of style and preference that may be good ideas, but are not necessary at the GA level. A fair number are genuine issues of prose clarity, which is a GA criterion; but they can't be fixed if they are not raised by someone somewhere. A GAR is one possibility; a less formal talk page discussion is another. As a Wikicup judge, I will be taking a close look at Starsandwhales' contributions, but that's not a matter for ANI. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiCup? first I've heard of this item. Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Taresantia

    Just another steady customer. Favonian (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A "new user", could an experienced editor/admin please look at this talk page—specifically, Taresantia's contributions to it—and then have a word. Or do something else. Many thanks! ——SN54129 17:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    After someone reported me here for entirely spurious reasons, I took it up with them. And that now results in another report here. Clearly, improvements to the encyclopaedia are most unwelcome here. Taresantia (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Plz block I have no idea what Taresantia's dispute with Qwirkle is, but Taresantia removed a post from Qwirkle on my talk page in violation of WP:REFACTOR. I reverted and issued a level 3 warning; Taresantia did it again, anyway. I don't see anything useful coming from this guy, so please block. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that three times. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be really helpful would be if someone told the guy who just randomly decided to troll me by reporting me here spuriously then making a series of absolutely baseless personal attacks to not do that. User:Chris Troutman has taken it upon themselves to interfere, and now demands that I be blocked. I have never previously interacted with them. They have clearly never looked at the contributions I've made to the encyclopaedia. This whole situation, this whole absurd nastiness that seems now to be developing into a random pile-one of aggressive passers by, arose because I removed some badly-written text from an article. So you want to hound someone out for having the temerity to make an article better? Absolutely amazing. Taresantia (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yeah I removed a most obvious personal attack against me, as the rules say I can, and should. Taresantia (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The aggressive and often insulting tone of this user's edit summaries seem vaguely familiar. Compare them with this for example. Number 57 18:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite so, Number 57. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And there we have it. ——SN54129 18:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=953752258"