Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor

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

---

I tried to avoid coming here knowing our admins are in short supply, but Nomopbs has been overly disruptive with no signs of improving without admin intervention. To make matters worse, he projects his bad behavior onto others, casts aspersions, fills article TPs with his screeds, doesn't quite understand our core content policies or what constitutes a RS. I'm usually among the first willing to mentor and help new editors, but this one is beyond my ability. Despite being relatively new to WP, he is not a newcomer to the dramah boards - all related to the same topic area:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Dogsbite.org_dispute 02-25-19 re: Dogsbite.org
• 04-02-19 re: Fatal dog attacks in the United States - never his fault - projects his bad behavior onto others;

I've exercised patience for a little over a month now - he does show potential less the tendentious editing which has caused good editors to leave the topic area, myself included, and I was in the middle of a GA review when he burst onto the scene and disrupted the process. There has been some concern raised over his behavior per WP:NOTADVOCACY partly due to his user name (which he has since changed) and his intense focus on keeping modern purebred bulldog types juxtaposed and/or associated with crossbred fighting dogs (pit bull types) as the following diffs will demonstrate:

• 06-13-19 GAC nom, Talk:Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier/GA1 07-08-19 FunkMonk accepted the GAC
• 07-09-19 first sign of advocacy; focus on Breed-specific legislation
• 07-09-19 performed edit without discussion during GA review & removed informative material
• 07-09-19 I left some of his changes per his initial suggestion, but added back important information he removed
• 07-09-19 first signs of his aggressive behavior
• 07-09-19 casting aspersions and BATTLEGROUND behavior
• 07-09-19 POV pushing, coatrack (omission of important info) and false accusations in edit summary - projecting his bad behavior onto others
• 07-10-19 Cullen issues general warning
• 07-10-19 Nomopbs replies to Cullen that he never heard of a GA review
• 07-10-19 Cullen advises him to stop being aggressive and confrontational toward his fellow editors
• 07-11-19 See my response to him above this diff - he continues projecting his behavior onto me, making fallacious allegations despite Cullen's warning
• 07-24-19 more POV pushing
• 07-26-19 denigrates official breed registries
• 07-26-19 after making false accusations against me, claims "y'all keep coaxing me back"
• 07-27-19 accused me and Gareth Griffith-Jones of tag-teaming
• 07-28-19 instructs reviewer to leave him out of it after causing disruption
• 08-02-19 advocacy adding "has often been included in breed bans that target pit bull type dogs"
• 08-06-19 advocacy prodding Dempsey (dog) - about notable dog wrongfully accused
• 08-06-19 advocacy altering info about Dempsey in Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
• 08-06-19 advocacy projecting - calls my work a "hatchet job" Bulldog breeds
• 08-08-19 advocacy POV pushing fictitious "rare breed" citing unreliable sources
• 08-08-19 projects his bad behavior, casts aspersions
• 08-09-19 my first warning to him after reading his aspersions
• 08-09-19 WP:HOUNDING my edits
• 08-15-19 another editor noticed his name. Nomopbs casts more aspersions against me.
• 08-13-19 it was a sincere question, yet Nomopbs falsely accused me of hounding
• 08-15-19 Nomopbs changes user name
• 08-15-19 posts a warning on my TP, casts aspersions

Sorry for adding so many diffs but I needed to demonstrate his patterned behavior. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

May I also point to the last ANI in which I mediated a dispute involving NomoPBS [1], where NomPBS showed a rather battleground mentality and refused to see their own mistakes. I also at the time questioned whether NomoPBS maybe had a COI with dogs, considering their username. I think a topic-ban on dog and dog related articles is in order, as it is clear that NomoPBS's emotions surrounding dogs run too high to collaborate. That or an outright indeff. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: User Nomopbs, or Normal Op, their new username now, has previously cast aspersions and attacked another longtime WP editor, PearlSt82, has disrupted a solid GAN, and is now attacking yet another long term editor. All attempts to reason with this individual result in long, tenditious attacks or at best, tl;dr argumentation that goes nowhere. There is also some evidence of meatpupperty or sockpuppetry involving another relatively new account that edits dog articles, and there has been at least one other inquiry about sockpuppetry involving yet another account. There was an set anon IPs making extensive edits on the bulldog breeds article right before this user created their account, and Dwanyewest also has made a comment that "I won't interfere otherwise I will be accused by the likes of User:Nomopbs of vandalizing the article." Editors who engage in this sort of single-purpose editing, with near-immediate drama, need to be restricted in some manner. I would suggest a 30-day block from dog articles, broadly construed, and see if they settle down. Their response below pretty much establishes the case against them. Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Unfounded accusation of sock-meat-puppetry with no evidence, Montanabw. I'm assuming you're referring to Aquataste. You should have first applied for Wikipedia:CheckUser before making that allegation. My account was created on 2018-11-02; Aquataste created his/hers on 2018-12-01. There were only three IP address edits to Bulldog breeds anywhere near that time, specifically 2018-10-29 thru 2018-11-03 [2]; one was minor, two were jibberish. Not even the use of the "Interaction Timeline" tool finds any signs of puppetries. Hell, I was delighted I got an "Ataboy!" from Aquataste; the only pat on the back I've gotten (besides my real life friends; none of whom are wikieditors). So I don't know what sort of evidence you think exists. Go ahead and request that Checkuser investigation. The other inquiry resulted in the findings of a wifi connection shared by two neighbors, which has since been resolved so it shouldn't come up again. — Normal Op (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• From my last email to you, "You appear to have been on T's wifi but since the majority of edits were yours, it looks the other way around. If the dogbite.org deletion discussion was underway right now, you would most likely be blocked for meatpuppetry. Consider that you have been warned not to get into that kind of situation again. I would also not recommend that you use his wifi again. Another checkuser would possibly block. I don't have the full picture yet but I don't think that going to ANI right now would be a good idea. If you do and someone asks about my post on your talk page then you should let them know that you have been warned by me in email."

• I'm posting for transparency's sake and because my findings weren't reported accurately.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Response from the accused, Normal Op (f/k/a Nomopbs)

Introduction: This all started as an ordinary CONTENT issue. Atsme has been whitewashing dog topic articles, removing content, and promoting the writing of a policy that would CENSOR certain content. Her reaction to ordinary editing against her wishes has been to start fighting against other editors and accusing them of personally attacking her (when all they were doing was editing content), followed by canvassing other editors to join in the attack of her [perceived] opponents. Atsme has a long history of reacting with hostility to edits against her wishes, which have resulted in topic banning her more than once. Apparently, I am her latest target. In an effort to skew opinion in her favor, her ANI write-up is full of loaded language and the summaries next to her diffs do NOT represent what is found in the diffs, all while painting herself as an innocent victim with the patience of Job.

Venue and time frame of interactions: Started with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article in early July 2019, paused for a week or so, then moved to the bulldog breeds area for about two weeks (August).

Canvassing: I have discovered four instances where Atsme solicited non-involved editors to join into her fight [against me]. Two declined: [3] [4]. Two jumped in, piled on, scolded me, but did NOT get further involved in the discussion or editing of content of the article, including Cullen328 [5] (who Atsme mentions in her ANI complaint, but omits mentioning she twice solicited him) and Gareth Griffith-Jones [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (who was the "tag team" mentioned; and they were emailing each other).

My behavior: My reactions have been normal based on the rapid escalation of Atsme's exclusionary don't-participate orders — being told to discuss-don't-edit, followed by 'your discussions are unwelcome', then 'go away, we're in the middle of a GA', 'you're attacking me', 'don't even talk to me', 'you're going to get topic banned', 'I'm done here'. Goaded into reaction, my attempts to explain my edits or my viewpoint were met with cries of "aspersions", "gaslighting" and "personal attacks", followed by Atsme soliciting other editors to "pile on" me. Any attempt to document, provide evidence of, or catalog specific actions by Atsme engendered more accusations of personally attacking her. The only action which worked was me 'going away'. This describes WP:BULLYING behavior.

Bullying a second editor: During the Staffordshire Bull Terrier GA marathon in July, Atsme attacked editor Cavalryman in the same manner, and they went through the same process (don't edit, discuss, your explanations are personal attacks, go away) until he retreated and stopped participating. This also describes a WP:BULLYING pattern. Best diffs (July 17-18): Atsme accuses Cavalryman [11], C's explanations about content [12], A starts with the "you're PAing me" [13], Pile-on by (probably canvassed) editor M [14], C's remarks about content and objection to accusations [15].

WikiBullying: Using the guidelines from WikiBullying the policy to research Atsme's actions, I provide the following evidence of recent conduct:

• Asserting ownership [16] [17] [18]
• POV Railroading [19] [20] [21]
• False accusations [22] [23] [24] [25]
• Misrepresentation/civility [26] [27] [28] [29]
• Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy [30] [31] [32]
• Threats/harassment (to cause a chilling effect in other editors) [33] [34] [35]

After discovering Atsme's pugnacious conduct in mid-July, I have tried extra hard to stick to content matters only but, despite that, Atsme continues to pick fights on Talk pages, insult and harass, and recruit non-involved editors to her cause.

Previous conduct leading to bans: Atsme was topic-banned from Antifa or some American Politics subjects, not once, but twice. The announcement [36] specifically mentions the SAME behavior as Atsme has shown in the dog breed topics leading to this ANI. That admin wrote: "Despite your commitments to "LETITGO", when someone actually suggested that you "drop the stick" you accuse them of "gaslighting" you. In fact it looks like you've accused at least 4 people of gaslighting you in the past couple of days. You take offense when others accuse you of CIVILPOV pushing, but you're quite liberal in doling out your own accusations of POV pushing. And your behavior at [link] and in the following subsection and RfC is a good example of the overbearing approach that was a part of the rationale for the original ban, and that you promised to discontinue." (Underline emphasis is my own.)

Further research led me to discover Atsme's pattern of accusations occurs all over Wikipedia, not just in my small world of dog topics nor limited to Antifa/AmPol. At first I thought it odd to see that more than half Atsme's 27K edits occured on User Talk and Talk pages, and there are three times as many Talk edits as main space edits [37]. A search of Talk and User Talk namespace for the words "Atsme aspersion" [38] brings up 273 instances. Then I read dozens of them. Same patterns.

My username change was prompted by the bullying. This [39] was the second time someone misinterpretted my old Nomopbs username as 'NOMOrePitBullS', and used that to allege spurious hidden intentions behind my edits. They alleged actions/edits which I wasn't involved in, accused me of violating WP:ADVOCACY, and didn't provide any evidence. The username change request does not yet appear in the archived logs, but the reason I gave was "I've been insulted twice based on a wrongly guessed meaning of the letters of my username and want to avoid future incidents. Therefore I'd like to switch from "nomop" to "normal op". I can skip the B.S. (Double-entendre fully meant!)" My old username was coined to represent "Normal operating procedure bull shit" and harkened back to the days when I worked in a ridiculously policy-heavy organization. My new username is "Normal Op".

This ANI: Atsme followed the username mix-up by insulting me [40], me telling her to stop harassing me [41], me putting a standard warning template on her Talk page [42], and Atsme declaring she was going to ANI [43]. This morning I discovered this ANI.

My actual intentions were to stop the whitewashing on the Staffordshire Bull Terrier page in July (a viewpoint shared by editor Cavalryman, whom I had not previously encountered) and in August to stop Atsme's destruction, removal, and censorship of material. Atsme's announcement of her intentions starts here [44], and continued with comments on other Talk pages. Atsme filed three AfDs for dog breed topics, so there's comments on the AfDs and all three Talk pages. Atsme went on a tear removing content and announcing her proposal to exclude all mention of 'non-recognized dog breeds' from the entirety of Wikipedia. My actions to block the destruction, and instead upgrade articles, has been met with more contentiousness from Atsme, culminating in this ANI today.

Advocacy? I'm not sure why someone allegedly interested in "No more pit bulls" would be trying to save material about bulldog breeds, or spend an entire week (as I did 8/8/2019-8/13/2019 [45]) researching and upgrading articles about them and rooting out citations and photos. The accusation is ludicrous and isn't borne out in fact by my edits, my pattern of edits, nor my Talk page discussions about content. (Nor has anyone provided any diffs indicating such a bent.) But don't take my word for it: check my edits in the edit histories of Bulldog breeds, Alano Español, Continental bulldog, French Bulldog, Ca de Bou, Catahoula bulldog, and Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog.

My Conclusion: This ANI is the latest action in Atsme's bullying pattern against me. Atsme has a lot more years of experience in Wikipedia than I have, and has been involved in far more disputes. Her diffs do not support the commentary she posted beside each of them, nor the accusations she is making against me. It's a complicated, messy topic with hundreds of interactions. I hope anyone reading this is able to follow along and separate the fact from the fiction.

— Normal Op (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to write the conclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: (aka Guy) And you don't get to edit my comments. My write-up, my introduction, my presentation, MY conclusion. Don't ever again strike out or alter anything in my text. — Normal Op (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh I do. This is the admin noticeboard. I also get to block you if I want. But I am still reviewing the diffs. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Totally a wall of text, but they can come up with their own conclusion without this. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That sure is a WALL of text. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I categorically reject any suggestion that I have ever been bullied by Atsme in any way. Cavalryman (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

To avoid confusion, I am creating a discussion section, now that we have long sections by both the complainant and the respondent. I've pretty much said my piece here, but it is a common courtesy to ping various people mentioned so that they may speak on their own behalf, so I shall do so. Thus, alerting Cullen328, Cavalryman, and Gareth_Griffith-Jones. I suggest future and further discussion by other editors take place here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I might be biased as I was the target of an ANI previously filed by Nomopbs (mentioned above), but after the discussion was archived without closer, I attempted to resolve the content dispute on Fatal dog attacks in the United States by requesting a third opinion. When the discussion wasn't going their way and consensus was against them, they responded with incivility, and appeared to put a ragequit type message on their userpage. When their version of the page - a bulleted list of primary studies, was removed by consensus, they put their own POV fork back up at Fatal dog attacks, which still reads in inappropriate bullet point form, using primary studies not secondary. I'm highly skeptical of their rationale for their namechange, as its hard to believe it means anything but "No more pitbulls". A few days ago, it was discovered that they were using multiple accounts on the same IP address at the dogsbite.org AFD discussion - these two events combined strikes me as being highly WP:GAMEy. I don't know if an indef is the answer, as they have branched out correcting minor typos across the project, but their problematic areas in the dog article area are certainly persisting after several months. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, the former username is pretty transparently short for No more pitbulls. Regardless of how you feel about the dogs commonly called pitbulls, it's pretty clear Normal OP is somewhere between WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE. The content area of pitbulls is itself a definite place to watch, as there is a great deal of polarization between both sides of the debate. I don't think Normal OP is acting so much in bad faith as perhaps a sincerely held belief that there is pro-pitbull bias on Wikipedia, and while that's definitely something to be wary of, it's clear that Normal OP's approach is not constructive and needs to change in some way. Thus, I think a topic ban from dangerous dogs generally, from pitbulls specifically, or from legislation and litigation involving dogs and dog safety would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Don't forget Aquataste. — Normal Op (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What does this have to do with them? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

@CaptainEek: Montanabw mentioned Aquataste, then tagged everyone else except Aquataste. Just following the convention Montanabw laid out. — Normal Op (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, fair, my bad. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was a toothpaste. EEng 02:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• This appears to be a case of a WP:SPA on a mission. My strong initial impression is that a topic ban is warranted. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: This whole conversation is happening because Atsme's deletion request for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulldog breeds is not going very well for him, so now he is trying to get Nomopbs account deleted. The person that is being aggressive and uncivil is Atsme, not Nomopbs. Atsme is a deletionist and Nomopbs is doing a good job editing and trying to save the article! Aquatastetalk 11:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  Struck sock comment. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Your comment is a PA per WP:Casting aspersions, and as an ArbCom remedy, may well be under the purview of AE. Your comments are very unkind, hurtful and untrue. I am more of an inclusionist and have invested most of my time at AfD working to rescue and improve articles. When I nominate an article for AfD, you can rest assured there are valid reasons. I posted a warning on your TP and requested that you strike your aspersions and the ill-will you have shown toward me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, posted three deletion of article requests in the same day and the consensus for each is not going his way, certainly does not make Atsme an inclusionist but rather a deletionist! One, Two, Three. At this point, I would recommend that the Admins consider giving Atsme a time-out at Wikipedia! Aquatastetalk 13:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Aquataste, can you confirm you are not IQ125? The topic overlap (chess, bulldogs, dog fighting/blood sports and Canadian topics) and article overlap (Olde Boston Bulldogge and List of books and documentaries by or about Bobby Fischer to name two) between the pair of you is truely extraordinary. Cavalryman (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC).

Dunno what their response would have been, but I can confirm the two accounts. Thanks, Cavalryman.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, so you perma-banned Aquataste's account. Calling out the big guns to attack anyone who supports me or opposes y'all. Nice play. And that even works as a warning shot over the bow to any would-be uninvolved editor who might venture to look at this ANI. Double score! No one would dare set foot inside this witch hunt now lest they be next. I must admire the gamesmanship, if not the players. Enjoy your cliques. I think I'll go mow the lawn. Yard work, though dirty and sweaty, is infinitely more pleasant. — Normal Op (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice rant. But since I'm sure you're aware the rules on sock puppetry are very strict, your conspiracy theory about that block isn't going to go anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JzG (Guy) blocked Normal Op for 31 hours for personal attacks or harassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• IBAN each other Normal Op has some valid points. Normal editing doesn't cease when under review for GA or FA. Likewise, Several of Atsme's deletions/actions are definitely in bad faith/unnecessarily hostile terrain. This very much feels like Atsme's actions are indeed retaliation. Normal Op also seems to be spending some time goading and needling. Normal Op, when done with your block, I would request that you refrain from further walls of text. IBAN would seem to be appropriate here. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban for Normal Op on dog and dog related articles. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban for Normal Op from anything related to dogs. I came across Fatal dog attacks in the United States when it looked like this: [46]. Normal Op had recently added that bullet-pointed list and summary of studies to the article, which was not appropriate content for the article (aside from the MOS violations, half of the studies were explicitly about non-fatal dog attacks), so I removed it. Their responses on the talk page showed battleground behavior and assumption of bad faith [47] [48]. Judging by other diffs presented, the previous ANI case, and this user's responses on this page, apparently that is typical of this user. They are here to promote their agenda. Maybe they could do good editing outside of the topic of dogs, but they certainly cannot within it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To set some facts straight, on 4/12/19 editor B__ removed 88% of the article (326,000 bytes), the entirety of the list of fatal events which have been the backbone of the article since it was created ten years prior. That's the version Red Rock Canyon links to. An hour later RRC removed 65% of the remaining text to leave standing a miniscule 4% of the original article. The resulting discussion on the Talk page was just as much about B's removal as RRC's removal. And then other editors suggested changing the name of the article, its purpose, and how it should be divided further. Since I had strong opinions, having been the primary editor of that article during the previous four months and heavily contributing my time with research to add about a hundred more fatality events, it is not so surprising that things got passionate on the Talk page. After a few days, I conceded the debate and took a hiatus from Wikipedia for an entire month. Notably, in the four months since [what appeared to be a] consensus, and with me out of the way, no one has implemented a single one of the changes they presented, discussed, debated, and got agreement on. Normal Op (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• T-ban - much too close to the topic. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding - the disruption by Normal OP continues with his screeds and now an embarrasing long list of unreliable sources at the Catahoula bulldog DRV. It is absolutely appalling. Sources like Doggie Designer, American Canine Association beware, fraud alert, all over the internet - "The problem today is that there are numerous pseudo-registries such as the American Canine Association (ACA), National Pet Registry (NPR), American Pet Registry (APR), or Continental Kennel Club (CKCI) and all will give you a certificate stating that your dog is “registered”. But within the purebred dog fancy, they are seen as counterfeit. The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier - a self-published book by hobbyists, and various other internet crap like Dog Breed Info, and on and on. If something isn't done to stop this madness, I'm concerned there will be a major walk-out of good seasoned editors at the Dog Project. It really is a sad state of affairs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Though I have indeed offered up examples of numerous citations that could be used, I had neither declared them RS, researched each one deeply, nor inserted them into any articles. The offering certainly didn't deserve cherry picking the worst citations then an onslaught of "disruption", "screed", "embarrasing", "appalling", "crap", "madness", and "sad state of affairs" all in one small paragraph — followed by threatening a potential walkout of other editors (unnamed) to go along with her own quit threat, "Once I see the results, I will make a determination if I'm going to continue as a NPP volunteer." [49]. As for "too close to the topic", I will recommend Atsme review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with respect to her own close familial connection to a commercial dog breeding business and in particular to "bulldogs" and "American Bulldogs", coincidentally one of the two parent breeds of the hotly contended Catahoula Bulldog breed (see the interrelated AfD [50], DRV [51] and RSN [52]). Normal Op (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

^^^^ HARASSMENT ^^^^ He's following me around again. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban for Normal Op. They can always ask for it to be rescinded later if they can demonstrate they know how to play nice elsewhere first.--MONGO (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question I see there are accusations of hounding, but has there been any biting of the newbies? EEng 18:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'm in favour of at least some sort of boomerang for Atsme. I came here from this deletion review: [53]. After one of the articles Atsme nominated resulted in four straight keep !votes, Atsme stripped all of the citations from the article, making it appear completely unsourced, on grounds they were unreliable - however, it's for the voters at AfD to determine the reliability of sources in the article for WP:GNG purposes, and removing all of the citations made it appear as if no sources for the article existed. I'm pretty active in AfD and DRV and I don't remember anyone doing this before and it comes across as very tendentious. The optics here as if Atsme is trying to "win" as opposed to improve the encyclopaedia, as RoySmith mentioned here: [54]. I haven't reviewed the rest of Normal Ops' conduct here and will be reserving judgment, but I haven't seen any problems with their conduct during my review of the AfD/DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with SportingFlyer, spot-on (above) assessment. I came here after seeing the same troubling Deletion Review and accompanying AfD where Atsme was the nominator. I have been in AfDs where the nominator behaved in such a manner (deleting sources to support their nomination) and I always consider it bad faith. Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was accused by that admin, and I responded accordingly. The closing admin is the one who suggested the DRV. In the event you haven't noticed, a disruptive sock that was participating at a high level of disruption at the dog articles and here was recently indef blocked. The editor subject of this ANI - the one who was being defended by that sock - was also blocked for PAs and disruption. You are now casting aspersions against me for no valid reason. I hope editors will take a closer look at that AfD and the sources cited. I'm of the mind that WP:CIR is at issue here if you believe the cited sources are RS for establishing notability. We should not be using puppy mill sites, individually owned & maintained websites by pet lovers and privately owned kennels, marketing sites by dog product companies, promotional sites for health tips, fake registries with anecdotal reports and unverifiable information about the history of a so-called "rare breed" that is nothing more than a profit center. If they were true breeds, they would have already been included in the long-established, reputable breed registries - the ones that date back to the 1800s. I encourage you to continue drawing attention to the problem sources as it will only serve to reinforce my position - maybe even help me recruit knowlegable editors who can help clean-up the mess, and better serve our purpose in building a quality encyclopedia. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I will not go through all of the references with you here, but it shows your COI that you would nominate the article, substantially degrade the article, and then when you still could not achieve the desired result of deletion, you appealed at Deletion Review (It was a strong keep at AfD. One of those sources was the CBC News and some others were books. It is notable per RS and the AfD was closed as it should have been despite your efforts to strip the article of all references. The labradoodle is not accepted either, but it is notable...and it has a WP article. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: - we need a type of WP:Tarage's Law for dog articles - call it The Labradoodle Law - In any sufficiently long Wikipedia discussion about a non-notable dog breed the topic customarily changes to the labradoodle." ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

EEng and his Boxers.

Sorry, I'm boycotting this thread because no one laughed at my earlier joke about HOUNDing and BITEy behavior. EEng 02:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

LOl. If any consolation I got it now. And spit out my tequila. Lightburst (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've always felt that if even one person's burden is lightened by my feeble efforts, it's worth it. So thank you for taking the time to share. EEng 03:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Some of us laugh silently on our sofas, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We all appreciate that you didn't say "... in our underwear". EEng 07:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't edit in your Wikimedia branded boxers? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Given the behavior of Atsme at DRV (generally lots of WP:IDHT) and the stripping of sources (including ones where the publisher is pretty clearly reliable) followed by a nomination for deletion, I think some kind of boomerang is appropriate. No opinion Nomopbs other than Atsme's fairly bullheaded behavior at AfD and DRV makes me wary of their use of AN. Note: I've been dealing with them at DRV and am not neutral on the issue. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope an admin does something about the bad faith editors who have been WP:Casting aspersions (PAs) against me, beginning with the proposer of the boomerang and those supporting it. None of what they've said is true, or supported by diffs. There is a serious lack of respect for the feelings of others, and that needs to change. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is no one is casting aspersions against you, and dismissing those who don't agree with you as casting aspersions/hurting your feelings has actually been a tactic I've seen you use recently (with the blocked editor, but I don't see anything here worth warning anyone over: [55] and calling the AfD closer's response "hurtful" [56], and has already done so twice at this ANI.) The wrinkle here is when you removed all of the sources from the article here [57] the article had already been closed as a keep, though you convinced the original closer to revert their close and relist, so, technically, you didn't remove any sources during an open AfD. That being said, only 45 minutes passed between the close, the complete removal of the sources, and then the reopening of the AfD, which was then for an article without any sources at all. Looking through the page's history, determining the reliability of the sources which were removed isn't necessarily easy - as someone who has never edited about dogs, they all appear borderline, exactly what an AfD is there to assess. It's possible Atsme is correct on the merits, but I'm not really concerned with that - after reviewing the diffs I'm focused on conduct here, especially the rapidity by which they accuse others of casting aspersions, and what looks like gaming the system to get a specific article deleted. I would potentially suggest a two-way IBAN between these two users, and maybe a topic ban as well. SportingFlyer T·C 07:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is your inability to recognize that you are WP:Casting aspersions. Actually, the end result of what you have been focused on instead of what you should be focusing on is that WP now has another article about a unverifiable bully breed that the no-more-pit-bull advocates can use to strengthen their case against innocent dogs that may just resemble a particular dog type even when they are not pit bulls. Our articles will help them verify these non-notable crossbred dogs as having pit bull origins based entirely on anecdotal information. Got scams? High quality RS are trying to clean-up the mess, such as Smithsonian, National Geographic, National Canine Research Council. But here you are defending trash sources suggested by a disruptive advocacy editor who has demonstrated an editing pattern that has raised concerns among some administrators. His focus is on validating non-notable dog types using trash sources if that's all he has to work with, such as the ones he listed at the DRV: Dog Breed Info, Doggie Designer, and ARF, a defunct small and personal registry that resulted in consumer complaints as a scam and fraud. Also see this discussion. We are clearly dealing with WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:SELF, WP:PROMOTION, Wikipedia:NOT, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV, the latter of which states: 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is also WP:NRV and WP:FRINGE. Yes, I removed 4 horrible sources, which is not an actionable offense, but you refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK and are casting aspersions, and that is an actionable offense. Sorry - this isn't about me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is primarily a content dispute, and I'm not here because I care about the content dispute, it's because I continue to be incredibly concerned with your conduct - I'm here to put on the record the fact you are clearly editing tendentiously to try to "win" this content dispute. Since my last response to you, you've also accused someone else who disagrees with what you're doing of casting aspersions at the DRV [58]. This IS about you, and trying to move the goalposts to claim you're winning the content dispute on the merits is yet another case of WP:IDHT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• On the overall gist of this, I have to concur with Atsme. The "NoMoPBs" editor, who has now changed username to disguise their WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problem has already been warned by multiple editors (e.g. at WT:DOGS) that a topic ban would be likely if they did not desist pushing a viewpoint, and here we are. There dog breeds topic just periodically attracts WP:GREATWRONGS nonsense, for which a T-ban is the cure if the disruption continues. I don't have an opinion on whether any aspersions/NPA stuff is at stake, not having pored over every word between these editors. Doesn't matter. The topical disruption is sufficient for the T-ban. Oppose boomerang and I-ban stuff. Removing unreliable sources isn't a wrong. Nor is reasonable criticism of an editor's behavior. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC); updated 17:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• close this drama thread. Atsme removed clearly unreliable sources per WP:RS . Normal Op, or whatever this editor’s name is now, clearly does not understand the line between NPOV and POV-pushing. I suggest a T-Ban on Normal op for, say, 90 days or more if needed, to assist them in learning how to edit collaboratively and understanding WP:RS. Montanabw^(talk) 00:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support limited topic ban Getting back on topic to the topic ban, I've looked through all of the contributions made by Normal Op/Nomopbs (and speaking as someone who knows little about dogs), there's a mix of edits which are clearly POV-pushing and there's a mix of edits which seem okay. A limited topic ban on bulldogs and pit bulls might work, I wonder if a final warning on any advocacy-pushing edits may be a better alternative, along with a temporary two-way interaction ban. I don't see any problems with any of Normal Op's edits in the AfD and DRV, which has been the focus of my involvement in this ANI thread until now, but agree there's enough evidence of a larger problem. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

SF, there is nothing I’ve done that warrants a 2-way i-Ban. I’m of the mind that i-Bans in general are set-ups to fail and do more harm than good. In this particular case, we have a very clear remedy for dealing with advocates. Prior to realizing the seriousness of what we were dealing with during the Staffordshire Bull Terrier GA review, I exercised patience and welcomed Nomopbs as a collaborator because I believe all prominent views belong in an article. We tried to explain the GA review process which he claimed to be unaware of but even after we explained, he continued the disruption - see the diffs I provided in my initial presentation. The responses I received when attempting to collaborate with this editor were only the beginning of his bullying, the projecting of his own bad behavior onto others, and relentless tendentious editing that was yet to come. It is highly unlikely that you will come across a female editor purposely provoking a bully - bullies don’t need provocation. In fact, such bullying is why we have fewer female editors. I’m pretty thick-skinned, and have always tried to respond with kindness and understanding but what I presented as my reason for being here now is a good summary of why a t-ban is needed in this case. It is rare that a SPA account is going to stop POV pushing voluntarily. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand the reasons for topic-banning individuals with POVs, and I'm concerned by recent edits such as this [59], but looking through all of the evidence I just don't see a need at this time. A lot of the recent conduct which led up to the ANI isn't enough for a block, in my opinion, and the user has made enough positive non-POV contributions recently that I just think either a final warning or only a temporary t-ban is needed. If you don't see a need for a two-way, that's fine, I'll drop the request. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I truly do understand your hesitancy. I had similar feelings and expressed them in my initial filing, but if you'll look at the diffs he used against me (many of which are simply repeat innocuous diffs) it speak volumes about his behavior. Look at his editor contributions and the date when he began. I'm seeing WP:ADVOCACY. I'm not the only editor who has had issues. If you get a chance, review this diff again. He changed his name from Nomopbs to Normal Op but it doesn't erase what he has already done since he first began editing. He was warned and refused to change - it is never his fault. He is a SPA on a mission as his edit contribs demonstrate. Review his interactions at Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I was of the same mind you are now but things changed. His mission is quite obvious - identify "pit bull" breeds in WP regardless of the modifications to modern breeds or the fact that their centuries old ancestry is based on anecdotal information. WP is neither a SOAPBOX or a place to RGW. The reason I believe it is extremely important, especially as it applies to RS and context, is explained well in the following articles: [60], PLOS ONE, Smithsonian, and there is also BBB, WaPo, and we certainly don't want to be the source that legitimizes a fake/unrecognized breed that ends up on a Buzz Feed quiz or a family pet being euthanized simply because of misidentification. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've looked through Staffordshire Bull Terrier (not the talk page) and the only concerning edit I see from Normal Op is this diff, and it appears their first edit to the page (new user, didn't go back farther in the years to check.) Everything else appears generally constructive, including areas where they have written about non-existent breeds. For instance, this edit at least appears to try to separate the Staffordshire dog from an American Pit Bull. I'd prefer either a final warning or a short term, maybe 30 days, narrow, pit bull specific ban to see if Normal Op can continue making positive contributions outside of their start as a POV editor. SportingFlyer T·C 04:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Again with the pit bull stuff? I've never even edited the Pit bull article, nor most of any of the allegedly-pit-bull-type breed articles. If you look at my ACTUAL contributions to Fatal dog attacks in the United States you'll find I add all fatal events regardless of dog breed. I started editing in Wikipedia on a day when another fatality happened (11/2/2018), and I noticed that half of the fatal events for 2018 were MISSING. So I signed up and started researching in order to add what was missing, and continued going earlier through the years filling in the missing events... and I just never stopped. I branched out into breed articles and other related topics. My alleged advocacy about pit bulls (pro or con?) is a figment that doesn't exist in my edits. On 11/2/2018 when I first edited, 31 dog-bite related fatalities (DBRFs) had occured for 2018, but only 18 were entered into Wikipedia. All 12 NON-pit bull DBRFs had already been entered into Wikipedia, but only 6 of the 19 pit bull DBRFs had been entered, leaving 13 missing pit bull DBRFs. (Before [61] and after [62]) If you're seeking 'advocates' on which to lay some fault, why not ask yourself which editor or editors deliberately omitted entering those 13 pit bull events (but didn't miss those others)? I have simply been filling in the blanks, and since that day I have entered numerous non-pit bull DBRFs. I don't discriminate. Normal Op (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose boomerang or IBAN I don't think Atsme is the problem here. Atsme showed marked restraint in their dealing with Normal Op. The real problem here was Normal Op's disruptive behavior (which hopefully could be remedied by a topic ban). Atsme is not the first to have a problem with Normal Op (see past ANI), and frankly an Iban is overkill. Don't shoot the messenger. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• T-ban While I would say that Atsme is in general far too hasty to throw around "Gaslighting" as a phrase, this looks pretty clear cut, notwithstanding that statement. I only bring it up because I was in fact one of the people accused of gaslighting Atsme in the Antifa scuffle. But here what I see is an SPA who seems to have an agenda evincing a lot of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND tendencies who writes massive (albeit very meticulously organized) text walls. IE: a person who might be productive, but not here. Suggest they go on to edit other parts of Wikipedia with nothing to do with dogs. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of Normal Op from all dog articles, canine articles and pet articles, broadly construed. For obvious reasons, these articles attract legions of fans, promoters and haters. There are plenty of appealing unreliable sources about pets online. Therefore, it is essential that we always rely on the highest quality and widely accepted reliable sources. Persistent efforts to push garbage sources must be met with a topic ban. I oppose an interaction ban or any sanction against Atsme while encouraging Atsme to strive to be less confrontational in such situations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: The case is weak and doesn't stack up. Normal Op technically should not be saying "WTF" or be WP:SHOUTing, but these are minor WP:CIVIL offenses. What are you counting as PA?

Also I am not seeing undue advocacy in this edits. It just looks like two POV editors disagreeing over e.g. whether to adhere to the staffie topic or elaborate on "Breeder-specific laws".

I should think Lightburst, Hobit, SportingFlyer quite justified in criticizing the deletion prior to DRV. On [63] the deleted Dog World (2005) book was a Ten Speed Press imprint and not a slam-dunk non-RS, so shouldn't have been removed by fiat without discussion prior to DRV. This is tantamount to "bad faith" conduct. It is not as if we are second-guessing you've acted blackheartedly or anything like that, so this "casting aspersions" complaint need not apply.

I will call out Cullen328 et al on lack of vigilance here. Sure, the 16 sources that NoOp listed turn out mostly to be questionable websites or WP:SELFPUB, I can see that. But it included a couple of TV news pieces plus 1 other book [64] which has roughly a column/halfpge on the cross-breed, published by I-5 Publishing which, though I did not know, used to put out Dog Fancy magazine. So Cullen's "Persistent efforts to push garbage sources" is hardly fair, given that NoOp frankly admitted he hadn't yet had the chance to go through the vetting of his list that had a mix of the good and bad, and hadn't gone on to use any of the bad ones in articles. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone fix the "small" tags in this discussion - all this humour is all very well, but it is making the rest of the page difficult to read.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Nigel Ish: I fixed it but you edit conflicted with me lol. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Ngokevin rapid fire promotional campaign in progress

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

---

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

This account is two days old with 30 edits. At least 29 of the 30 edits are to publicize a particular presidential candidate, and the 30th is a sort of covering edit for one of the 29. Most have been reverted. For example, at the PowerPoint article they inserted that this candidate said they would use PowerPoint at the state of the union address if elected.

They are also clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor operating in a rapid-fire highly organized and clever fashion. Which raises other concerns. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not out of the ordinary for Yang supporters; see eg this video. Definitely a SPA at the moment but offer guidance and AGF? Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

They've gotten the necessary guidance: "Stop!" If they continue, block as SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. This is not just an SPA (which we don't block for as such) but a NOTHERE issue. Right now they're not continuing, but people are watching. Bishonen | talk 05:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC).

They are obviously an experienced editor editing under a 2 day-old account. I guess a lot of things could happen next including another brand new account. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, North8000, but those edits are so unusual that if another brand new account starts making similar ones, it'll be a really obvious duck. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC).

Yes, and the people at the articles were catching some of the edits. Most likely one of those would look at the account's edit history. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Could this be a AndInFirstPlace (talk · contribs) sock? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Framly optimisticwas railroaded!]]} 20:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This account was created on 7 April 2016 and didn't do anything at all until six days ago. It's clearly a sleeper sock but I cannot say of who. Their comment that they're an "expert on the policies of that candidate" ([65], later corrected to "informed on" [66]) is concerning since they only seem to have woken up to put Yang's name into as many articles as possible. Could be AIFP, I had a look at behaviour and AIFP is definitely a Yang enthusiast although their more recent socks just seem to want to be disruptive on the primaries generally, and Ngokevin doesn't have enough talk page posts to really compare. I doubt CU would tell us anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Would anyone mind terribly if I blocked as a spam only account?-- Deepfriedokra 18:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's a bit stale, but I don't see why not - even if the content is well-sourced, the account only exists to promote one topic. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

As Bishonen said, being a SPA is not a blockable offense. Looks to me like the disruption has stopped, so no block is needed. A higher warning level might be in order, to make sure he has gotten the point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to have missed a letter. Deepfriedokra was suggesting blocking N as a SPAM account, not as a SPA -- and that we do indeed block for Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a hunch they have stopped. Last edit 1 week ago. ANd yes, SPAMMERS are blocked indefinitely. A final warning would not hurt, but again, I think they've finished. I went ahead and final warned them. -- Deepfriedokra 19:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I think Bishonen's point was that SPAness was not the issue but that WP:NOTHERE was. We also block for NOTHERE.-- Deepfriedokra 20:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, it's a potential NOTHERE issue, but Bishonen also noted the behavior had stopped. And people are still saying "the account only exists to promote one topic" which sounds like a SPA complaint. Blocks are not punitive; maybe this editor will see the light and do good. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

And people say I'm overly optimistic. -- Deepfriedokra 21:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack § Infobox and suspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronic disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is User:Tapered? This thread can be closed and reopened (after taking a week breather from it) by any editor so inclined. User:Tapered is not taking responsibility for what they've initiated. They said "Can I remove this section?"[67] Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was a request to see diffs from Anthony22's talk page (in so many words). Here are seven from June 25, 2019 2018 to August 25, 2019 : [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] and there is more. that follows into August. All one has to do is continue flipping the pages. Here is Mandruss's June 2018 suggestion. That adds one more talk page diff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user:Mztourist's disruptive editing

The user continuously makes disruptive editing on article Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991.[75] He keeps claiming he has "consensus" and refusing to resort to DR process without any proper reasoning in line with WP:CON.[76] 1.43.12.127 (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

there is consensus on the Talk page, but you won't accept it. Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the definition by WP:CON. 1.43.12.127 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There are three active editors on the page. Both of them disagre with the IP. Absent additional eyes, I'd suggest the IP is evincing WP:IDHT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 the problem is, after the course of discussion, they have ceased to protest the editing since May. A new consensus has been reached since then. 129.78.56.207 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no "new consensus" and I have opened an SPI against the multiple IPs who keep changing the page, including 129.78.56.207.Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the page and there have been good points made with regard to the reliability of the sources; but the presence of a "new consensus" is entirely unclear, and it remains the case that I see nothing at all disruptive or problematic about Mztourist's edits. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ortizesp and page moves (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangeblock necessary

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

---

Breitbart's fanbase are venting their spleen on some editors in the Antifa (United States) arena and cycling IPs when they pull a block. 184.75 range. Here's the relevant IPs so far:

184.75.100.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 184.75.98.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can we get a rangeblock to deal with this nuisance? Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This range is 184.75.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and appears to be assigned to Starbucks, with other users making constructive edits even as the vandalism is ongoing. The two IPs reported so far are already blocked individually, let's see if that takes care of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Averette and the Cuban sandwich

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

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

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

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

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

• Having watched this for a for months I agree Averette behavior has been sub-optimal. We might be getting to a time when a one revert sanction or a topic ban may be in order. This [[77]] actually makes me think we are at a point where an indef block may be called for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

• Support topic ban on Cuban sandwich and Tampa/Ybor City broadly construed. The comment about Tampa in the diff Hell in a Bucket posted was reprehensible. Support indefinite block if that behavior resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Topic ban Never did I think I'd support a sandwich topic ban... who knew a sandwich could be so controversial. I think this warrants inclusion in WP:LAME. I also think a strong warning for this diff is in order. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN was just about to say what Captain Eek said above, I'm having trouble getting over how absurd it is that someone is edit-warring and potentially getting a TBAN over the history of a sandwich. Also, this discussion is making me hungry. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• SPI clerk note - an investigation was filed over Averette's logged-out editing this week. I declined to block based on that because I presumed they just forgot to log in after being away for a significant amount of time, and the page was protected so the damage was limited. If someone wants to block for some other reason, I'm not standing in the way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Propose and support indefinite block for this. If they post comments like that because of a sandwich, no one knows what they'll post when they get into a dispute over something more substantial than that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• This is that has been posted today after the warnings [[78]]. I think the good faith or lack there of is pretty evident. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

• User:Michepman, it could be but it would be really coincidental if you look at that post and this edit [[79]]. Could be wrong but I doubt it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Range block for category vandal

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

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

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

Disruptive IP editing at Hippie and now Hipster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained campaign of misattribution of views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Static IP making nothing but unsourced changes to population figures

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

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

Hi Oshwah, thanks for your answer and explanation. I don't think it's technically possible to be certain that it's static, is it? But it obviously passes the duck test, wouldn't that apply here? They've made the exact same edit to the Italians article three times, in November 2017 [80], September 2018 [81], and March 2019 [82], and two very similar edits to German diaspora, in October 2017 [83] and September 2018 [84]. For the past two years, 100% of the edits have been unsourced changes to sourced population numbers, almost all about the population of Brazil, in each case leaving the new figures contradicting the existing source, for example: [85].

In most cases the changes were eventually reverted (sometimes after weeks or months), but some were never caught and have remained in the articles until today, e.g.: [86] and [87]. There's no evidence of any other behavior or anyone else using the IP. I don't know what the rules are about IPs being "stale". I could try to keep an eye on their contributions, but I don't think I'd be able to check every day in order to catch them in the act. Since they edit so infrequently, a week-long block probably isn't going to have much effect anyway. It seems to me that the value of a longer-term block to stop what is obviously one person who has for years done nothing but add made-up statistics would outweigh the slim-to-none chance that it's actually a dynamic IP with multiple unrelated people making the exact same edits. But I don't always understand the way things work here... --IamNotU (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Bot-like IP edits

Over the past few weeks, someone using the IP address 74.14.10.125 has been steadily making non-productive, seemingly scripted edits: changing infobox whitespace (examples: [88][89][90]) and removing/altering punctuation indiscriminately (examples: [91][92][93][94]). Would it be possible (or appropriate) for an administrator to rollback his or her edits en masse? gnu57 02:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated vandalism inspite of warnings

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

159.146.0.0

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

---

Shrink the IP block to 159.146.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), please – the /16 mask originated from incorrect range arithmetic and wiki gregariousness. Another affected half Special:Contribs/159.146.128.0/17 is a usual mobile customer range in Ukraine. See m:Steward requests/Global #Global block for extremely disruptive LTA and simple:User_talk:Vermont #Carpet bombing for more background. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done. ST47 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Process violations and canvassing at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV push and destruction of page

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

---

POV push and destruction of the Page Kurdistan Regional Government who was redirected. But the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) really exists. A simple search on Google helps.[95]

This is obvious manipulation and vandalism by this user Ahmedo Semsurî[96] تہجی (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

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