위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive1017

토니 메이와 영국 철도에 대한 다른 편집자들에 대한 지속적인 비판과 경시

• 토니 메이 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

이것은 몇 달 동안 계속되었고 최근 며칠 사이에 새로운 발병과 함께 감소할 기미가 보이지 않는다.토니 메이(Talk·기여)는 영국의 철도, 사진, 위키백과 편집에 관한 자칭 전문가다.나는 이것에 도전할 생각이 없다.다른 편집자들은 그의 기준에 도달하지 못하고 그는 결코 우리에게 이것을 상기시키는 것을 느리게 하지 않는다.따라서 그의 논평은 다른 편집자들의 작품을 무시하며 개인적으로 모욕적이다.많은 편집자들이 이로 인해 고통을 받았다.

1월경, 모일레시98(토크 · 기부)과 기사에 그들의 사진을 사용하는 것에 대해 상당한 의견 충돌이 있었다.이것에 대해 상당한 논쟁이 있었고 영국 철도 프로젝트에서는 모일리의 편집이 쟁점이었지만, 또한 토니의 논평이 지나치게 개인화되었다는 광범위한 합의가 있었다.이러한 상황은 몇 달 동안 개선되지 않고 계속되었다.

• 사용자 대화:모일레시98#좋은 생각이 아니다.
• 토크:LMS 쥬빌리 클래스 5690 레안더#사진 (5월)

이는 하나의 편집자를 대상으로 한정되지 않았다.

• WT:WikiProject_영국_철도/아카이브_45# 토니 메이(5월, 아직 작은 클람의 목소리)의 계속되는 비판

여름 동안 약간의 평화로운 시간을 보낸 후, 우리는 이제 다른 기사로 돌아왔다.

• WT:Wiki Project UK_Railways#이미 사진과 함께 삽화가 된 간경을 묘사하기 위한 팬 아트 다이어그램의 사용
• WP:빌리지 펌프(정책)#기사에 팬아트의 활용
• Wikipedia_talk:위키프로젝트_UK_Railways/Archive_45#Libery_diagrams 이것은 실제로 4월까지 거슬러 올라간다.

어제 이게 나타났어.

• 사용자 대화:레일판23길#잘못된 행동을 되돌려야 한다.

• 글쎄, 나는 여름 동안 평화롭게 지냈다고 생각했지만, "그 쓰레기 사진을 사용하지 마," "당신은 정말로 공감대를 이해하지 못하거나(대화 페이지를 참조), 혹은 사실 불충분한 헤스트 뱅크 이미지가 훨씬 더 좋은 이미지를 대신했다는 것(확실히 애논으로)은 분명하지 않다."

British Rail Class 390(토크 내역 편집 보호 로그 보기 로그 보기)

이건 편집자 한 명을 대상으로 한 게 아니니까, 난 디프(diffs)에 들어가지는 않을 거야. 하지만 링크에 있어.여기서 공통적인 주제는 토니 메이다.그는 어떤 내용도 편집자 자신을 저격하는 것으로 바뀌지 않고는 비판할 수 없을 것 같다.우리는 이것들 중 몇 가지를 용서할 수도 있지만(그것들은 훌륭하지 않다, 그런 일이 일어난다) 이것은 토니에게 만연한 주제인 것 같고 다른 것들로 편집된 것이 거의 없는 것 같다.

• "- 불행히도 생산적인 논평은 아니지만, 당신의 역사를 볼 때, 그것은 예상하지 못한 것이 아니다.위키백과를 살펴보십시오.소개 - 특히 "다른 사람에 의해 비평되고 무자비하게 편집되는 작품을 원하지 않는다면, 기여하지 말라"고 쓰여 있는 부분.이 토론에 추가할 만한 내용이 있으십니까?"
• "먼저 널 "시시한 사진작가"처럼 보이게 할 필요는 없어 - 플리커에서 혼자 관리하고 있잖아."
• "저조한 품질의 팬 아트"
• " 나는 우선 자신이 하고 있는 일에 대해 정말 오랫동안 골똘히 생각하고 그 주제에 대해 식견을 갖는 것이 최선이라고 생각한다."

여기서 강력한 경고와 이것이 당장 중단되지 않는 한 제재가 뒤따를 것임을 시사하는 것이 필요하다고 생각한다.아니면 좀 더 강한 걸 수도 있지.앤디 딩글리 (대화) 12시 20분, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 앤디 딩리가 이곳의 상황을 읽는 것에 100% 동의한다.일주일 전 토니 메이에게 말했듯이당신의 "의견이 중요한 유일한 사람은 내 의견이고 다른 모든 사람이 동의하지 않을 때 다른 모든 사람은 틀렸다"는 태도는 근본적으로 위키피디아의 여러 가지 핵심 가치와 양립할 수 없으며, 만약 당신이 접근법을 바꿀 의사가 없다면, 결국 사람들은 당신에게 두 번째 기회를 주는 것을 그만두기로 결정할 것이다; 당신이 여전히 그럴 수 있다는 사실.위키피디아는 엄청난 양의 WP를 확장한 사람들의 결과물이다.당신을 향한 AGF는 아무도 당신을 지지하지 않는다는 사실이 아니라 당신이 그만 좆같은 것을 하기를 바라며 당신을 향한 AGF는 당신을 향한 AGF 입니다. 위키피디아는 폭넓은 관심사를 가지고 있고 다양한 관점을 가진 사람들을 갖는 것에 번창하지만, 다른 사람들이 때때로 그들과 동의하지 않을 것이라는 사실을 기꺼이 혹은 감사할 수 없는 사람들은 여기에서 환영받지 못한다.; 사용자 대화의 사실:레일판23길#위에서 강하게 연결된 당신의 잘못된 움직임과 실을 되돌릴 필요가 있다는 것은 토니 메이가 "나는 내가 옳다고 생각한다"와 "다른 사람들은 모두 바보라고 생각한다"를 분리할 수 없거나 원하지 않는 것처럼 보인다는 것을 나타낸다. (나는 증기기관차에 대해 거의 알지 못하거나 관심이 없으며 이 특정한 경우에 토니 메이가 맞는지 아닌지를 전혀 알지 못한다는 것에 주목하라. 그러나 그가 맞는지 아닌지는 않다.그가 사물을 토론할 의사가 없다면 바로잡는 것은 중요하지 않다.)나는 토니 메이가 막히는 것을 보고 싶지는 않다. 그는 분명히 자신이 도움이 되고 있다고 생각한다. 하지만 그는 그가 돌이킬 수 없는 사람이 아니라는 것과 그가 진정으로 우리의 규칙을 따르기를 거부한다면 그가 어떤 긍정적인 결과를 가져오더라도 우리는 그를 원하지 않는다는 것을 그에게로 몰아가야 한다.∙ 무지개빛 13:45, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 토니 메이가 내 토크 페이지에 올린 글에 확실히 놀랐다.다른 편집자와 상호작용을 시작하는 것은 무례하고 매우 적대적인 방법이었다.일회성이었다면 용서받을 수 있겠지만, 보다 광범위한 상호작용 패턴의 일부로서 걱정스럽다.레일판23 (대화) 14:28, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

토니 메이는 타당성을 제기하지만 그들은 그것에 대해 너무 독단적이다.사진은 "예술가가 만든" 이미지보다 더 적절하게 유효한 정보를 전달한다.나는 이 실에서 사용된 "팬 아트"라는 용어와 거리를 두고 있다.사람이 손으로 그림을 그릴 때 이미지가 원본 연구일 가능성은 카메라가 이미지를 찍었을 때보다 더 크다.이것은 항상 100% 사실인 것은 아니지만 나는 이것이 일반적인 원칙이고 나는 이것이 토니 메이가 불러일으키는 원칙이라고 생각한다.영상의 가용성은 하나의 요소로서, 카메라로 기계적으로 제작되고 다른 기법으로 렌더링되는 다양한 유형의 영상은 기사에서 서로를 보완할 수 있다.토니 메이의 요점은 이해되어야 하지만 토니 메이는 사진적으로 제작된 영상만 허용된다고 주장해서는 안 된다.도표는 프로젝트 전반에 걸쳐 일반적으로 사용된다.그들은 예술가가 만든 것이라고 말할 수 있지만 그들은 정보를 전달하는 데 매우 능숙하다.버스정류장 (대화) 14:32, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

그러나 그들이 포함하고 있는 정보는 검증될 필요가 있다.한편 팬아트는 경멸적인 용어는 아니다.어떤 팬아트는 절대적으로 훌륭하다.아몬드 판 (대화) 14:54, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

앤디의 글에서 내가 동의하지 않는 유일한 점은 시작일이다.2019년도 아니고, 이 사용자 페이지는 2012년부터 그 태도가 존재했음을 증명한다. - X201 (대화) 15:00, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

당신의 링크를 확인해보니 대부분의 경우 다른 사용자들이 먼저 토니를 저격한다는 것을 알았다.토니가 가끔 칭찬(그리고 사진 조언)을 하는 반면, 이 다른 사용자들은 자신의 길을 찾는 데 더 집중하는 것 같다.나는 토니가 편집 요약을 다르게 표현해야 한다는 것에 동의하지만, 관련된 모든 사람들에게 개선의 여지가 있다.아몬드 판 (대화) 15:05, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

팬아트라는 용어는 이 논의와 무관하다.고도로 기계화된 프로세스에서 도출된 이미지는 고도로 합리적인 이미지를 생산한다.카메라는 지루한 물건 앞에 설치되든, 재미있는 물건 앞에 설치되든 상관하지 않는다.사람이 렌더링한 이미지는 주관적인 요인에 의해 영향을 받은 흔적이 더 잘 나타난다.사진 장비를 사용하는 것은 주관적인 요소들을 우회하여 내가 이성적인 이미지라고 부르는 결과를 낳는다.이성적인 이미지를 독창적인 연구라고 부르기는 어렵다.핸드메이드 이미지는 독창적인 연구비 부담에 더 취약하다.반면에 핸드메이드 이미지에는 관련 없는 정보가 없을 수 있다.그러므로 판단력을 발휘해야 한다.버스정류장 (대화) 15:11, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

• "팬아트"는 이런 맥락에서 사용될 때 두 배로 모욕적이다.그럴 리 없어.편집자를 '유스터레이터'나 '편집자'가 아니라, 여기서 그들의 역할을 진지하게 받아들이는 '팬'으로 묘사하고 있다.기관이나 기술에 대한 감각이 없는 철도 수동적 추종자(그리고 문맥상으로는 사소한 주제)둘째로, 이것은 완전히 무의미하고 대부분 비숙련적이라고 여겨지는 틈새인 팬 아트와 함께 이것들을 결합시킨다.

여기서 유효한 비판은 "색깔이 잘못되었다" 또는 "그 로고 버전은 그 색상 세트와 함께 등장하지 않았다" 또는 유사한 것들이다.하지만 나는 그런 것들을 들은 적이 없다: 비판은 객관적이지도 않고 순전히 주관적인 IDONTLYIT이다.적어도 사진의 경우 토니는 종종 근본적인 이유가 있었다.앤디 딩리(토크) 15:20, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

우리는 모두 다른 배경을 가지고 있다.팬아트를 많이 쓰는 사람으로서 팬아트를 만드는 사람들에 대한 존경심이 가장 크다.여기서의 비판은 질이 떨어진다는 것이었다.아몬드 플레이트 (대화) 15:53, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

문제는 그 비난이 근거가 없다는 것이다.편집자는 그저 "낮은 자질"이라고만 말할 수 없고 마치 주장을 한 것처럼 그냥 가버릴 수 없다."아마추어 보이는 것"이나 토니가 말한 많은 다른 것들도 마찬가지야.그것은 AFD에서 투표하는 사람들 전체만큼이나 "그는 눈에 띈다"고 말하는 사람만큼이나 설득력이 있다.Sometguy1221 (대화) 07:24 (UTC) 2019년 8월 15일 (화)[응답]

나는 그가 내 토크 페이지 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WestRail642fan#Illustrating_Articles에서 한 말을 올리고 싶어. 그는 위키백과에서 떨어져 있으라고 말하고 있어. 창의적인 (대화) 19:39, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

와우, 그건 아마 토크와 관련이 있을 거야British_Rail_Class_370#Do_we_really_need_the_MS_paint_diagram?앤디 딩글리 (대화) 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC) 19:56 [응답]

넵 앤디, 그리고 그가 370년에 제기한 문제는 기사의 모든 사실과 출처가 14명의 코치를 가리키고 확인할 때만 APT가 9명의 코치와 함께 달리는 모습을 보여주었기 때문인데, 나의 도표는 이 그림에서 창의적인 (대화) 06:46, 2019년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]을 보여주고 있다.

...열차 사진들.나는 토론을 읽었고 나에게 소리를 지르는 것은 왜 그 도표가 작동하지 않는지에 대한 논쟁의 강박관념이다.고양이 수를 제대로 못 잡았다는 얘기야.나는 그 도표를 가진 기사의 평균 독자들이 같은 모양의 기차차의 수가 100% 정확하지 않다면 조금도 개의치 않을 것이라는 것을 인식하는 것이 토니 메이의 이득이 될 것이라고 생각한다.이것은 마치 일반적인 정보 백과사전이 아닌 기차 애호가들을 위한 위키에 대한 논쟁처럼 느껴진다.토니, 진정해2001:4898:80E8:8:4A8C:90EF:7D89:7E37 (대화) 20:07, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

토니는 너에게 충고를 잘 해 주고 있다.당신의 작품은 소스가 되지 않는 한 여기에 머물 수 없다. 현재로선 그럴 것 같지 않다.그것은 다른 곳에서 훨씬 더 높이 평가될 것이다.나는 Flickr보다는 DeviantArt를 추천한다.DeviantArt는 간장을 양성하는 데 종사하는 예술가들로 이루어진 커뮤니티를 가지고 있다.아몬드 플레이트 (대화) 20:19, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

난 사실 그들을 일탈하기 위해 게시했다.ART는 잘 되어 있지만, 주로 여기서 사용하기 위한 것이다. 창의적인 (토크) 07:10, 2019년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

아몬드 판은 사진을 바탕으로 한 열차 도표와 발행된 뉴스/신문/잡지/기타에 기초한 백과사전 기사 사이에는 실질적인 차이가 없다.둘 다 쉽게 확인할 수 있지만, 세부사항의 100% 복제는 아니다.예를 들어 뉴스 기사에서 "Joe Bloggs는 10 Borough Road, Islington에 살았다"고 말할 수 있지만, 우리는 "Joe Bloggs는 런던에 살았다"고 쓸 수 있지만, 우리는 출처를 보고 "그렇다, 그 진술은 정당하다"고 말할 수 있다.비슷하게 우리는 기차의 사진을 보고 "그래, 맞는 것 같아"라고 말할 수 있다.100장의 사진을 봐야 도표를 한 조각씩 받아볼 수 있을 것 같은데 확인할 수 있다.도표의 요점은 보다 쉽게 소화할 수 있는 형식으로 도표를 요약하는 것이다.마찬가지로 거대 하드론 충돌기도 수많은 과학 기사와 논문을 보다 쉽게 해석할 수 있는 것으로 요약한다. -mattbuck (토크) 20:40, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 토니는 끊임없이 합의를 이루지 못하는 개인적인 의견을 얄밉게 표현하고 있다.도표를 실제 열차의 실제 사진과 비교해 보아야 한다면 스스로 만족시킬 수 있다.소스 링크가 제공되어야 한다는 주장이나 이미지 정보 페이지는 동등한 자동차의 실제 사진과 연결되어야 한다는 주장이 분명히 있지만, 솔직히 나는 당신이나 토니가 이것에 대해 "소스"라고 여기는 것이 무엇인지 모르겠다.기술적 도면의 목적은 복잡한 항목을 중점사항과 비교를 위한 핵심 세부사항으로 단순화하는 것이며, 이는 매우 효과적이다.Sometguy1221 (대화) 20:52, 2019년 8월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그래서 @Tony May:다음에 할 일이 뭐죠?공식화된 조치에 대한 제안은?앤디 딩글리 (대화) 15:39, 2019년 8월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• 일부 guy1221은 "기술도면은 복잡한 항목을 핵심 세부사항으로 단순화하는 것"이라고 유효하게 지적한다.그러나 토니 메이는 사용자가 만든 이미지가 본질적으로 독창적인 연구라는 것과 마찬가지로 타당한 주장을 하고 있다.우리는 장점이 단점보다 클 때 이것을 간과한다.도표에서는 단순화가 매우 유리하여 한 사용자가 설명하는 단순화라는 사실을 무시한다.나는 토니 메이가 묘사된 철도 운송 주식에 대해 더 높은 수준의 진실성을 요구하고 있다고 생각한다.나는 그들이 그것에 대해 타당한 지점이 있는지 없는지 모르지만, 나는 그들의 주장의 원칙이 전적으로 타당하다고 믿는다. 하지만 그들은 이러한 사용자들이 만든 이미지를 관련 기사에 포함하기에 적합하다고 생각하는 합의를 받아들여야 할 것이다.버스정류장(토크) 16:06, 2019년 8월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그러나 이 실마리는 기부의 질에 관한 것이 아니라, 기부에 대한 토니의 반응에 관한 것이다.

우리는 이용 가능한 사진 중 "최고의" 사진을 선택하는 방법에 대해 일련의 논거를 가지고 있다.우리는 이와 같은 이미지에 대해 비슷한 것을 가져본 적이 없다 – 아마도 우리는 그래야 할 것이다.그러나 토니가 계속 사용하고 있는 용어로 누구에게나 반응이 오갈 때, 어떤 종류의 협업 프로젝트도 결렬된다(토니는 이미 여러 편집자를 이 작품에서 몰아냈다.그만 좀 해질적인 문제는 나중에 얘기할 수 있지만, 단순히 다른 사람들을 헐뜯고 얕잡아 보는 것이 아니라, 우리는 그 문제에 대해 이야기해야 한다.앤디 딩글리(토크) 2019년 8월 18일 19:31 (UTC)[응답]

나는 지금 이 시간에는 착하게 행동하라는 일반적인 충고를 넘어서는 어떠한 행동도 하지 않겠다고 말하고 싶다.하지만 네가 ANI에 이것을 가져간 것은 맞았고, 사실 에스컬레이션을 막았을지도 모른다.아몬드 플레이트(대화) 19:48, 2019년 8월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 동의하지 않는다.내 생각에 앤디는 프로젝트 내에서 일반적인 분쟁 해결을 따르는 대신에 에스컬레이션을 위해 그것을 여기에 가져온 것 같아.나한테도 그런 짓을 했어디클라이언 (대화) 14:47, 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그래서 @Tony May: 다시 편집하고 있지만 여전히 이 실을 무시하고 있다.그는 또한 이미지를 둘러싼 편집 전쟁으로 돌아왔다. Talk:영국 철도 D0260.좋은 의견이라도 있나?(여기에 내가 너무 관여되어 있기 때문에).앤디 딩글리 (토크) 14:23, 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

  그는 자신의 주장을 어떻게 압박하는지에 대해서는 다소 무례해 보이지만, 행정 개입이 필요한 수준까지는 아니다.이른바 '팬아트' 항목에 대한 중립적인 RFC 질문을 공식화하고, 단순히 말다툼만 하지 말고 지역사회의 공감대를 문서화하는 것은 어떨까?디클라이언 (대화) 14:42, 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

• 글쎄, 네가 나보다 훨씬 덜 관여했으니까, 네가 그것을 형성하는 건 어때? (진지한 제안, BTW)

내 AGF는 모일레시를 향한 그의 행동에 몹시 화가 났지만, 우리 레지던트 사진 전문가가 자기 사진 한 장도 올리지 않았다는 것을 알았을 때 완전히 끊어졌다.앤디 딩글리 (토크) 14:46, 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아, 프로젝트 토크 페이지에서 한번 시도해 볼게.가장 관련성이 높은 기사 예시나, 리버리 갤러리 같은 것에 대한 조언을 좀 보내줄 수 있니?그리고 관련 편집자 리스트는?내가 하는 동안 "리버리 디테일"에서 모자를 찾아도 될까?디클라이언 (대화) 14시 53분, 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 며칠 동안 집을 비웠기 때문에 이 WP의 대부분을 놓쳤다.드라마. 앤디의 행동에 실망하긴 하지만 그들에게 적대적인 접근을 하고 싶지는 않아.나는 그의 반고전주의적인 접근방식에 대해 슬퍼하고 있는데, 그것은 너무 지나친 WP이다.드라마. 화 안 났어.나 자신의 사진을 올리는 것도 아니고, 공개적으로 토론하고 싶지 않은 이유도 있지만, 플리커부터 위키미디어 커먼즈까지 좋은 사진을 많이 올렸다.만약 누군가가 나의 지식을 시험하고 싶다면, 나는 적절한 기술적 용어를 사용하여 사진을 토론할 준비가 되어있을 것이다.역량.여기서 내가 할 말은 그게 다야.WP:VP(P)에서 좋은 논의가 있었다. 그리고 이것이 있다.토니 메이(토크) 15:09, 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

적대적?나는 사람들에게 "처음에는 널 "젠장 사진작가"처럼 보이게 할 필요가 없어. 네가 Flickr에서 그 모든 것을 혼자 관리하고 있잖아."라고 말하는 사람이 아니야.앤디 딩글리 (대화) 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC) 16:08 (답변)

두 분 중 어느 한 분이 이곳 진흙탕에서 노는 대신 생산적인 일을 하고 싶으시다면, 위키백과_토크에서 시작한 일을 완성할 수 있도록 도와주십시오.위키프로젝트_UK_Railways#(초안)_RFC_on_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles.디클라이언 (대화) 17:54, 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

Welp, FWIW, WP:눈이 좀 필요할 것 같은 BLPN 후기.-- DLOhcierekim 18:16, 2019년 8월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

기초적인 질문에 대한 RFC는 이제 Wikipedia_talk에서 개방된다.위키프로젝트_영국_철도#RFC_on_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles.프로젝트 외부에서 온 몇몇 눈이 유용할 수도 있다.디클라이언 (대화) 02:13, 2019년 8월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이제 새로운 스레드가 위키백과에 있다는 점에 유의하십시오.마을_펌프_(정책)#메인_사진_질문 앤디 딩글리 (대화) 11:24, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

(아래 콘텐츠는 앤디 딩리(토크) 15:21, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

• 다른 곳에서는 편집자들이 내가 어른처럼 제기했던 요점에 대해 토론하고 있다.그리고 이게 있다.
• 내가 주로 편집하는 기사를 편집하는 능력을 방해하는 것은 대부분 무의미하다.
• 좋은 이미지를 선택하기 위해서는 이미지에 대한 가치판단이 필요하다.대부분의 사람들은 사진작가가 아니고, 유용한 사진을 찍는 방법을 이해하지 못한다, 나는 이것을 이해한다.
• 나는 앤디의 토크 페이지에 있는 앤디와 개별적으로 그 문제를 제기했고, 그의 의견을 기다리고 있다.
• 나는 많은 기사에서 이미지 선택을 분류하는 것을 포함한 많은 훌륭한 기여를 했는데, 역설적이게도 앤디는 그가 대부분 동의한다는 것을 인정한다.
• 나는 내가 실수로 다른 편집자가 (지금은 금지된) "젠장 사진사"라는 것을 암시했을 수도 있다는 것을 인정한다 - 이 편집자를 참을성 있게 다루려고 노력한 후, 그의 WP:베니티, 그리고 카메라의 기술 부족.이 논평은 내가 그를 개인적으로 공격했고 그를 "젠장 사진작가"라고 불렀다고 그가 제안한 후 나온 것인데, 그 단계에서는 나는 그렇지 않았다.나는 이것을 좀 더 정중하게 표현했어야 했다.만약 내가 다른 편집자들에게 좌절했다면, 이전의 시점에서, 나는 이것을 후회한다.

다시 말하지만, 나는 화가 나지 않아, 단지 기사를 개선하고 명확화가 필요할 것 같은 정책을 명확히 하려고 할 뿐이다.토니 메이(토크) 15:18, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

이것을 계속 제안서 아래쪽으로 옮기지 마십시오.모든 것을 반대하려면 그렇게 말해라.

그러나 이것은 분명히 여기에 속하며, 당신이 이전에 답하지 않은, 실속 있는 토론이다.

당신은 메인 스페이스에 많은 훌륭한 편집을 했고, 좋은 이유로 많은 이미지를 선택했고, 당신이 코드화하는 데 도움을 준 이유 때문에 우리는 당신에게 감사한다.하지만 이런 식으로 다른 편집자들에게 개인적인 감시를 계속 할 수는 없어. 계속 그렇게 하고 있잖아.만약 다른 편집자들이 그것을 피하기 위해 공식적인 제한이 필요하다고 생각한다면, 그것은 일어날 것 같은 일이다.앤디 딩글리 (대화) 15:36, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 보통 전염병처럼 이 페이지를 피하려고 노력하지만, 이것과 관련된 무언가가 내 흥미를 끌었다.토니 메이, 너도 알다시피, 나는 형편없는 사진작가야.내 전공이 아닌 것 뿐이지.우연히 내 사진들이 예술적 업적으로 내게 상을 주는 경우는 드물다.나의 재능은 항상 글쓰기에 있었다, 또는 그렇게 들었다.나는 논픽션을 쓰는 데 많은 경험을 했고, 그것이 내가 테이블로 가져오려고 하는 것이다.나의 사진적 노력은 순수하게 독자에게 시각적 도움을 주고, 본문이 말하는 것을 설명하는데 도움을 주는 것이다. 그리고 종종 진정한 상상력이 도움이 되는 부분이다.그림은 정말 천 마디의 가치가 있고, 본문이 말하는 것이 무엇인지를 명확히 하는데 도움을 줄 수 있다.하지만, 정보를 주는 형편없는 사진은 텍스트가 의미하는 것을 스쿼트하지 않는 아름답고 예술적인 사진 천장 가치의 가치가 있다.

예술은 매우 주관적이다. 한 사람의 예술은 다른 사람의 눈에 거슬릴 수도 있다.이와 같은 논픽션 영역에서 훨씬 더 중요한 것은 객관성이다.내 사진들 중 어느 것도 그렇게 좋은 것은 아니지만, 책에서부터 과학 연구, 잡지, 블로그에 이르기까지 모든 것에서 발견될 수 있으니, 분명 더 큰 목적을 위해 쓰일 것이다.

특히 눈길을 끈 것은 편집자가 그린 이미지가 어쩐지 사진보다 열등하다는 생각이었는데, 특히 잘못되었다고 생각한다.편집자들이 만든 아주 좋은 그림이나 그래프의 예는 수없이 많은데, 그것은 종종 사진을 찍을 수 없다. (직시해 보자, 눈이 보는 것에 필적할 만한 카메라는 만들어지지 않았고, 그마저도 한계가 있다.)어떤 그림들은 이것과 같이 소싱이 반드시 필요하다.다른 것들은 독자들에게 이것이나 이것과 같은 기사에서 이미 발견된 수많은 출처와 그들의 비자유적 삽화를 바탕으로 사진 촬영이 불가능하지는 않더라도 어려운 과정이나 내부 구조를 아주 잘 볼 수 있게 해줄 수 있다.일부 사용자는 이 그래프와 같이 신뢰할 수 있는 출처가 사용하는 동일한 NIST 추적 가능한 계측기를 사용하여 자체 그래프를 만들 수 있다.다른 사람들은 와서 이와 같이 그들 자신의 조잡한 기구를 사용하여 같은 판독을 한 다음, 이 두 가지를 결합하여 이미지에 약간의 색을 더하고 이와 같은 결과를 검증할 수도 있다.마지막으로 중요한 것은, 사람들은 기록이나 이와 같은 다른 형태의 자료와 이 예술가에 의해 만들어진 다른 유용한 사진들을 바탕으로, 그들 자신의 상상력으로 이미지를 창조할 수 있다는 것이다.

마지막으로, 제 말은, 여러분의 주장은 많은 논리적 오류들로 가득 차 있는데, 그 중 최소한이 권위의 주장이 아니라는 겁니다.다른 이미지보다 특정 이미지를 선택하는 좋은 이유가 있을 수 있지만(예를 들어, 납 이미지들은 종종 몸 안의 이미지보다 훨씬 더 큰 예술적 정밀 조사를 받게 된다), 여러분은 잘못된 방식으로 그것을 다루고 있다.나와 여기 앤디 같은 사람들은 모두 매우 직설적인 경향이 있다. 종종 무뚝뚝할 정도로-- 하지만 누군가에게 그들의 일이 "너희들은 형편없다"보다는 수준 이하라고 말하는 훨씬 더 좋고 더 친절한 방법들이 있다.그리고 이 편집과 같은 경우에, 더 형편없는 이미지는 더 높은 품질의 이미지보다 훨씬 더 유익하다.그게 도움이 되었으면 좋겠어.제레트 (대화) 00:32, 2019년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

프로포즈

• 토니가 이 실마리를 무시하기로 선택한 것에 비추어 볼 때, 나는 토니와 어떤 것에 대해서도 합의할 가능성이 별로 없다고 생각한다.이 실이 "착하게 놀아야 한다는 일반적인 생각"의 역할을 할 수도 있다는 제안이 있었다.그 대신 우리가 실제로 본 것은 다음과 같다.

• Lion에서 편집 워링하여 Infobox 이미지 [1] [2] 제거([3]의 편집에서 steming)
• @Bow1s53에 대한 양말 퍼프팅 혐의:
• 언제나 그랬듯이 그는 "자금적으로 정직하지 못하다" "우리는 이제 이 특히나 나쁜 사진을 없앨 수 있다"와 같은 말을 자꾸 늘어놓는다.분명히 이 ANI 나사산은 아무런 영향도 끼치지 않았다.

제안 시간:

1. 메인 스페이스에서 이미지 링크 제목 편집 금지 TBAN
2. 위로부터 1RR
3. TBAN이 모든 공간에서 이미지 또는 이미지 품질 선택에 대해 논의하지 않음
4. TBAN이 다른 편집자의 의견이나 편집에 대한 폄하로부터, 리: 여기 또는 커먼스에 업로드된 이미지 선택 또는 이미지 또는 심지어 이러한 업로드가 WP 편집자의 업로드가 식별 가능한 Flickr와 같은 다른 사이트에도 업로드된다.

• 나는 1,2,4를 지지하겠지만 아직 3은 지지하지 않았다. (하지만 나는 내가 그것을 후회하게 될 것 같다.어쨌든 4는 모든 편집자에게 암묵적이어야 하지만 분명히 철자가 필요하다.앤디 딩글리 (대화) 11시 46분, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]
• 나는 1RR과 4를 지지할 것이다 - 심지어 1RR로도 그가 파괴적일 것이라고 생각한다.제니 15:49, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]
• 모두 반대하다.이 제안은 부당하게 일방적이고 불신을 전제로 한 것이다.내가 보는 것은 앤디 딩글리의 편집 전쟁과 앤디의 다양한 미개한 토크 발언이다.영국 철도 D0260.이것은 매우 실망스럽다.사용자들도 사진의 품질에 대해 논평할 수 있으며, 앤디와 함께 토론하는 도중에 휴면중인 편집자가 어떻게 갑자기 도착했는지를 묻는 것은 전적으로 비논리적인 것은 아니다.만약의 경우:앤디야, 콘텐츠 분쟁에서 상대에게 1RR을 부과한다고 해서 두 번을 되돌림으로써 모든 논쟁에서 이길 수 있는 것은 아니라는 것을 알아 두라.아몬드 판 (토크) 22:07, 8월 22일

• 반대해. 내 생각에는 "시시한 사진사"라는 말이 우리를 너무 화나게 해서는 안 될 것 같아.논쟁에서 명확한 의견 일치가 중요하다.나는 불친절함에 찬성하지 않지만 또한 명확한 의사소통을 줄이는 것에 찬성하지 않는다.버스정류장(토크) 01:35, 2019년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

대안제안

1. 편집자들은 영국 철도 기사, 특히 모델, 라이브러리 다이어그램 및 기사의 주제(즉, 실제 열차)를 묘사하지 않는 다른 이미지들에 이미지를 추가하거나, 명확한 합의가 이루어지지 않는 한 이를 유지하지 않을 것이다.아몬드 플레이트 (대화) 23:07, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

• 제안자로서의 지원.아몬드 플레이트 (대화) 23:07, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]
• 강한 반대 분명히 말도 안 되는 제안이다.편집자들이 페이지를 전혀 편집하지 않는다는 제안에서 한 걸음 떨어져!제니 00:00, 2019년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Wiki Factions 해결사

St.에서 이름을 삭제하는 데 방해가 되는 사용자페테르부르크

어쩌면 이것은 이미 상식일 수도 있지만, St에 위치하는 다양한 동적 IP의 사용자일 수도 있다.페테르부르크는 수많은 경고와 반전을 무릅쓰고 다수의 전기 기사에서 체계적으로 이름을 삭제해 왔다.이 이름은 문장의 시작 부분부터 삭제되는데, 흔히 "초기 생활" 부분에서는 일반적으로 "앤더슨은 에서 태어났다"와 같이 바뀐다.문법적으로 틀린 문장 파편을 주제 없이 남겨두고 단순히 " 에서 태어났는가..."에 이르는 말이다.사진 캡션에서도 이름이 삭제된다.그들은 이것 말고는 아무것도 하지 않는 것 같다.

공공 기물 파손과 붕괴에 대한 많은 경고가 있었다.사용자 대화:178.70.168.215, 사용자 대화:91.122.184.163, 사용자 대화:178.70.36.51 등 무시된 내용.블록을 하나도 못 찾았지만, 한 IP에서 몇 개 이상 편집하는 경우는 거의 없다.

최근 IP에는 다음이 포함된다.특수:기여/178.70.30.163 (오늘), 특별:기부금/92.100.80.238, 특별:기여/92.101.206.160, 특별:기여/78.37.161.147, 특수:기여/178.66.212.9 및 기타 다수편집된 내용은 적어도 2018년으로 거슬러 올라가며, 2016년 또는 이전까지: 특별:기부금/178.70.46.116.

나는 '조기생명이 탄생했다'거나 '생물학자가 탄생했다' 등등, 그리고 그것들을 되돌리려 했지만 모두 잡지는 못한다.나는 많은 오래된 수정사항들이 과거에 정리되지 않았다는 것을 발견했다.블록이나 레인지블록은 불가능할 것 같아.플래그를 표시하도록 필터나 태그를 편집하는 것이 가능할까? --IamNotU(토크) 22:56, 2019년 8월 16일(UTC)[응답]

그래, 위키피디아에서 물어보고 싶은데:필터 편집/요청됨.그 변화를 포착한 편집 필터처럼 들린다." was born"로"Was born"효과가 있을 거야닌자로봇피리테 (토크) 00:22, 2019년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

하지만 그렇게 해도 이와 비슷한 편집은 포착되지 않을 것이다.--Nat Gertler (토크) 00:30, 2019년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자가 우리의 스타일에 익숙하지 않을 가능성이 있는가?러시아어 위키피디아는 순수한 산문이 아닌 전기의 경우 매우 다른 스타일을 사용한다; 나는 무작위적인 러시아 철학자 한 명을 골랐고 결국 표도르 슈케르바츠코이에서 그 러시아어의 기사는 다음과 같이 시작된다.

또한, 러시아어는 프로드롭 언어로서, 일반적으로 동사가 암시하는 대명사를 포함하지 않는다. (그 기사는 좋은 러시아어 문장의 예를 제시한다 - 6단어, "그가 보인다.그가 온다."는 러시아어 "ижу"를 번역하는데 필요하다.идё.".".) 그런 경우라면, 본의 아니게 자기 언어의 문법/syntax/등등을 영어로 수입하고 있다면, 기사의 주제가 되는 특정 개인에 대해 이야기 할 때, "X에서 태어났는가"가 말이 될 것이다.그래서 어쩌면 이 사람은 우리가 그런 식으로 쓰지 않는다는 것을 이해하지 못한 채 그저 ru:wp 스타일을 따르려고 하는 것일지도 모른다.나이튼드 (대화) 03:23, 2019년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그런 편집된 것들을 꽤 규칙적으로 본다.전형적으로 그들은 모국어가 러시아어이고 영어로 제한된 명령을 가진 사용자들에 의해 만들어진다.또한 러시아 백과사전에서는 주제를 삭제하는 것이 상당히 일반적이라는 점에 유의하십시오(예를 들어 XXX에 관한 기사는 YYY년 XXX가 아니라 YYY년에 태어났다고 한다), 기계 번역(불행히도 여전히 자주 사용되고 있다).-Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 2019년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]).

누락된 대명사가 러시아어 화자들이 영어로 쓰는 일반적인 실수인 것은 사실이다.그러나 이것은 분명히 세인트 로스틸콤의 한 사람이다.강박적으로, 로봇적으로, 페테르부르크는 수 년 동안 수백 개의 전기 기사에 대해 동일한 독특한 이름을 삭제하는 편집을 했으며, 이 편집은 그들이 한 유일한 편집인 것 같다.예를 들어, 매우 무차별적인 경우가 많다.[16] 또는 [17].교란과 공공 기물 파손에 대한 최종 경고가 많이 나왔지만 연락이 닿지 않는다.한 경고는 다음과 같다: "이러지마.만약 당신이 왜 당신의 편집이 취소되는지를 이해하지 못한다면 당신은 영어로 편집할 수 있는 능력이 없다.만약 그렇다면 이건 반달리즘이야."라고 요약하면,악의적인 것에서 막연한 것에 이르기까지 그들의 마음속에서 일어나고 있는 일은 그리 중요하지 않다 - 가차없는 편집은 해롭고 파괴적이다.만약 그들에게 계정이나 안정된 IP, 좁은 IP 범위가 있었다면, 그들은 오래 전에 업무 중단, 의사소통 실패, 그리고 "여기에 없다"는 이유로 차단되었을 것이다.

대화도 차단도 불가능해 보여서, 도움이 되지 않는 편집을 방지하거나, 플래그를 붙이거나, 검색할 수 있는 더 효과적인 대안이 있는지 궁금했다.정상적인 검색은 많은 것을 찾을 수 있지만, 그것은 다소 제한적이다.편집한 내용이 독특한 패턴을 가지고 있기 때문에 자동화된 접근법에 자신을 빌려줄 만한 것으로 보이지만, 그런 식으로 무엇이 가능한지는 잘 모르겠다.편집필터 요청도 검토할 수 있어. --IamNotU (토크) 12:59, 2019년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

그냥 궁금해서...만약 이 사람이 러시아인이라면, 경고의 러시아어 번역을 제공하는 것이 그들의 이해를 도울 수 있을까?다이아몬드 블리자드톡 17:57, 2019년 8월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

I've left warnings on the talk page of this morning's IP, saying "Хватит удалять имена из биографий!전기에서 이름 지우지 마!"영어 위키피디아를 충분히 탐색할 수 있다면 구글 번역기에 경고를 넣을 수 있을 것이라고 생각하지만, 시도해 볼 만한 가치가 있다고 생각한다.여기 섹션 제목도 "vandal"에서 "무중단 사용자"로 바꿨는데, 그들이 도움이 된다고 생각할 수 있기 때문이다.

내가 좀 더 정리를 해 봤는데, 이 범위에는 실제로 가장 최근에 편집한 블록에 대한 가능성이 있는 것 같아.특수:기여/78.37.160.0/20 및 특별:기여/92.100.80.0/20. 기여도는 /16 범위 중 편집한 내용이 모두 포함된 것으로 보이며, 1월 이후 거의 독점적으로 편집한 것으로 보인다.내가 찾은 다른 범위는 이것들인데, 그 안에 더 좁은 범위가 있을지는 아직 확실하지 않다.

• 특수:기여/91.122.0.0/16
• 특수:기여금/92.100.0.0/16
• 특수:기여/92.101.0.0/16
• 특수:기여/178.66.0.0/16
• 특수:기여/178.67.0.0/16
• 특수:기여/178.70.0.0/16

이와 같은 편집이 정말 수백 건에 달하고 있으며, 매일매일 계속되고 있다.또한 그들은 가끔 만화 관련 기사들을 작게 편집하는 것처럼 보인다. 예를 들어 특별:기여/178.70.28.51, 지금까지는 동일인인지 확실히 알 수 없지만. --IamNotU (대화) 13:03, 2019년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 20년대부터 레인지 블록으로 시작할 수 있어.닌자로봇피리테 (대화) 18:23, 2019년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

위에 나열된 /16s를 훑어본 후, 이 편집기가 활성화되어 있는 IP 범위는 다음과 같다.

• 특수:기여/91.122.96.0/20(2019년 4월 마지막으로 명백한 제목 삭제 편집)
• 특수:출연금/91.122.176.0/20(2019년 7월)
• 특수:기여/92.101.192.0/20 (1919년 8월)
• 특수:기여/92.101.224.0/20 (1919년 8월)
• 특수:출연금/178.66.64.0/20(2019년 6월)
• 특수:출연금/178.67.128.0/20(2019년 7월)
• 특수:출연금/178.70.16.0/20(2019년 8월)
• 특수:출연금/178.70.32.0/20(2019년 7월)
• 특수:출연금/178.70.64.0/20(2019년 6월)
• 특수:출연금/178.70.160.0/20(2019년 7월)
• 특수:출연금/178.70.208.0/20(2019년 2월)

물론 ISP가 사물을 /20s로 분해한다고 가정하면, 이것은 완전히 가능한 것으로 보인다.나는 최근에 활발히 활동했고 명백한 부수적 피해가 거의 없는 몇 가지를 더 차단했다.닌자로봇피리테(토크) 19:44, 2019년 8월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]

블록을 해줘서 고맙고, 서브랜드를 지적해줘서, 청소하기가 더 쉬울 거야! --IamNotU (토크) 01:29, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

닌자 로보트피레이트, 오늘 스페셜로 돌아왔다.기여/178.67.181.183. 그래서 내 생각에, 특수:기여/178.67.176.0/20?5월에도 일부 편집이 있었다. --IamNotU (토크) 19:14, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

며칠 동안 IP를 차단했는데 그걸로 충분할 것 같다.그 범위 내에서 다른 IP에 장애가 없는 것을 감안하면 혹시 내가 잘못한 것이 아닌가 하는 생각이 들 수밖에 없다.두고 봐야 알겠지만, 정말로 그것이 /16년대와 /17년대에 무작위로 퍼지지 않기를 바란다.닌자로봇피리테 (대화) 19:29, 2019년 8월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

그들은 오늘 Special에서 돌아왔다.기여/178.70.160.0/20 다시.하루에 한 번(그리고 단 한 번) IP가 바뀌는 것 같으니 개별 IP를 차단하는 것은 의미가 없을 것 같다.매일 그들은 7/16들 사이에서 점프할 수 있다.하지만 그것들 안에서, 나는 그것이 완전히 무작위라고 생각하지 않는다.마지막 178.70.*를 제외하고 각각 1, 2 /20s에서 그것들을 발견했을 뿐이다.하지만 예를 들어 같은 /16s에서 인도 영화 관련 편집을 하는 아주 다작의 IP가 또 있지만, 같은 /20s에서는 본 적이 없는 것 같다.하지만 실제로 없는 패턴을 볼 수 있었다... --IamNotU (토크) 21:15, 2019년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

레인지 블록 요청

안녕.

더 파이터와 키드를 편집하는 IP가 엄청나게 많아RFP(현재는 취급)를 넣었지만, 레인지블록 기술을 가진 사람이 그 사안의 편집자 쪽이 확실히 처리되도록 그들 쪽에서 할 수 있는 일이 있는지 살펴 볼 수 있는지 궁금했다.

히스토리 링크

IP:

1. 82.39.250.181
2. 2600:100C:B021:6287:7934:57C5:BBC3:B830
3. 192.197.178.2
4. 170.232.227.220
5. 2602:306:CFD1:6310:6C6E:1F09:E951:49E7

건배, 노즈백베어 (토크) 21:35, 2019년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

• 불행히도 그 IP들은 모두 그들 스스로 꺼졌다. -- 그들은 어떤 범위도 형성하지 않고, 모든 지도에 있다. 미국, 캐나다, 영국.그 기사는 이제 일주일 동안 반자동으로 발견되었으니 그들이 지루해졌으면 좋겠다.비쇼넨 토크 21:43, 2019년 8월 23일 (UTC)[답답하다]

폴란드의 점령 (1939-1945)

2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57

DRN 참조 - 편집기 사용자:바윅, 행동상의 문제들~ 백과사전을 만들려고 여기 온게 아니야.

사용자에 의한 지속적인 중단 편집:"민족집단"이라는 용어를 둘러싼 카탈루냐의 히스팔루아

의심스럽다고?

• 다이아몬드145 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• TD-리눅스 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• 62.11.73.23 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• AV1(토크 내역 편집으로 로그 보기 보기 삭제 링크 보호)

AV1은 PR을 "소스"(Ref)로 인용한 홍보 문구로 부풀어 있었다.이름에는 PR도 많이 포함되었다.나는 이것을 치우고 그들의 광고 대행사에서 분명히 쓰지 않은 것으로 다시 정리했는데, 이상한 일이 일어났다.지난 2016년 3월 이후 편집이 10번도 안 되고 편집도 안 했던 다이아몬드145가 함께 와서 돌아섰다.나는 이것을 풀고 62.11.73.23을 터뜨렸고 곧바로 TD-리눅스는 11개의 이전 편집본을 가지고 있고, 그의 기사는 총합이 없고, 5월에 마지막으로 편집된 광고를 가지고 있다.이것은 비-위키적인 청탁이거나 양말풀이일 수 밖에 없다.Guy (Help!) 20:07, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 트위터에서 언급된 것을 보았다.엄밀히 말하면 비위키적인 청탁이군TD-리눅스 (대화) 20:15, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

먼저 토크페이지에서 출처를 논의한 다음, 그 중 하나를 사용하자는 공감대가 있다면 기사를 확대하자고 제안하고 싶다.—조금 푸른 보리브^_^v^{Fram was railroaded!} 20:21, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

좋아. COI가 있어서 예전에 기사에는 빠졌던 적이 있어.내가 아직 기여가 가능한지 토크 페이지에 댓글을 달겠다.TD-리눅스 (대화) 20:53, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 Diamond145도 마찬가지라고 생각한다.처음부터 그 기사가 광고처럼 읽히지 않았다면 좋겠지만 다이아몬드145는 다시 되돌아왔다.가이(도움말!) 20:57, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 나는 많은 주의에서 스스로 되돌아왔다.—조금 푸른 보리 v^_^v 21:02, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

2019년 브라질 산불

2019년 브라질 산불 토크 페이지에는 위키피디아가 인종차별을 조장하고 있으며 '제1차 세계 대 브라질 캠페인과 그것이 사람'이라고 주장하는 IP가 있다.분명히 행동적인 문제일 것이고 나는 그것이 그를 진정시키기 위해 제3자의 도움이 필요하고 어쩌면 그가 자신에게 해로울 수 있는 말을 하지 않기 위해 이 주제를 종결시킬 필요가 있다고 생각한다.당신은 어떻게 생각하나요?고마워, 에릭 소레스3 (토크) 01:16, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 기사 자체로는 아무것도 하지 않는 것 같지만, 나는 그것이 ADM의 도움이 필요하다고 생각한다.에릭 소어레스3 (토크) 01:18, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

의심스러운 편집 사항

비RS가 사이언톨로지 관련 기사에 다시 삽입됨

4일 전 위에서 논의된 행동에서 Iansnap12(토크 · 기여)는 허바드의 문학 대리인 Forrest Ackerman에 관한 비RS 출처를 추가했다.이 사용자는 현재 온라인 경매를 RS로 인용하면서 애커크만 관련 자료를 다시 추가했다.Feofer (talk) 00:01, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

Iamsnag12(토크·공헌)이지 Iansnap12(토크·공헌)가 아니다.테아웨솜Hwyh 01:22, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]

너는 또한 내가 너를 위해 한 이 토론에 대해 그들에게 알리는 것을 잊었다.테아웨솜Hwyh 01:46, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그게 유일한 문제라면 경매 너머의 다른 출처를 줄 수 있지만, 실제로 그 경매에 졸업장 이미지가 있다는 것을 고려하면, 꽤 결정적인 것 같지 않은가?Iamsnag12 (대화) 01:52, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

이봐, 난 이 부분에서 편집하는 게 불편해서 그만둘게나는 이 일에 대해 정말 필요하지 않는 한 어떠한 언급도 하지 않을 것이다.평화, TheAwesomeHwyh 02:01, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답하라]

마찬가지로 정리를 위해 관리자에게 맡기지만 WP를 위반하는 것 같다.RS 및 WP:NOR, 일주일도 안 돼 두 번째 사건 발생Feofer (대화) 02:51, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

주제 영역으로서의 사이언톨로지는 재량적 제재를 받고 있다는 것을 기억하라.—조금 푸른 보리 v^_^v 03:14, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

오해의 소지가 있는 문장 및 필요한 템플릿 제거

이 IP 사용자[28]는 분명히 위키백과:건설적으로 기여하기 위해 여기 있지 않다.사용자는 족제비 단어("몇")를 사용하여 독자들을 오도하고 토크 페이지에서는 논쟁에 관심이 없는 것 같다.[29] POV 템플릿도 되돌린다.야지디스 페이지는 이미 지난 두어 달 사이에 많이 파손되어 어제 보호 상태를 잃었다. --아흐메도 셈수르(토크) 22:28, 2019년 8월 23일(UTC)[응답]

그런 식이 아니다.내가 소스 정보를 추가했는데 방금 삭제했잖아.[30] 그리고 당신은 출처를 읽지 않고 POV 푸시와 OR로 나를 고발했다.91.236.142.212 (대화) 22:37, 2019년 8월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

• 91.236.142.212, 족제비 단어와 OR이 없다는 것에 동의한다.나는 네가 추가된 자료를 적절하게 참조했다는 것을 주목했다.너도 그 페이지에서 벌써 세 번이나 되돌아왔구나.WP:3RR을 읽으십시오.그러니까 속도를 좀 줄여줘.누가 옳고 그름을 떠나 한 번 더 돌이켜보면 막힌다.나는 너희 둘에게 이것은 내용상의 논쟁이며 여기서 다룰 수 없다고 충고할 것이다.이것은 기사의 토크 페이지에서 다루어야 한다.새로운 섹션을 열고 편집자는 추가된 자료와 사용된 참조에 대해 논의할 수 있다.WP를 따르십시오.분쟁 해결을 위한 DR.고마워, 루르데스 09:51, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

@Lourdes:한 사람의 의견을 사용하고 그것을 "어떤 사람"에게 일반화하는 것은 매우 번거롭다(그리고 그 의견이 일반적으로 유지되고 있다는 것을 어떤 식으로도 나타내지 않기 때문에 OR이다).그 문장이 그대로 있으려면... --아흐메도 셈수르(대화) 11시 14분, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]이 필요하다.

출처를 제대로 읽지 않은 것이 분명하다.개인이 아니라 일부(출처 말대로)는 "일부에서는 지난해 10월 이라크 보안군의 공세에 이어 연방정부의 통제를 받고 있는 쿠르드족이 간 것을 기뻐하며 자치권 증대의 기회를 엿볼 수 있다"고 말했다."[31] (So, Some Yazidis are happy that the Kurds have left the Yazidi territory of Sinjar and they do not want to be a part of Kurdistan.) and also "Like OTHERS, Abu Sardar complained that the Kurds forced him to vote in the Kurdish referendum, accusations the KRG denies." 91.236.142.212 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

그 표현은 여기서 내 문제의 절반에 불과하다.후반전에 대해 얘기합시다.밖에 나와 있는 수백 명의 학자들(더 최근의 학자들 포함) 중에서 조지 월터 프로테로의 의견을 독특하게 만드는 것은 무엇이며 왜 그가 도입부에 쥐어짜는 것일까?또한 일부 야지디인들은 쿠르드족이 신자르의 야지디 영토를 떠난 것에 대해 기뻐하고 있으며 쿠르드족이 쿠르드족 영토를 떠난 것에 대해 다른 이들이 불만을 느끼고 있으며 쿠르드족이 쿠르드족의 일부가 되기를 원한다는 것을 나타낸다.아니면 내가 뭘 놓치고 있는 걸까?다시 한 번 말하지만, 왜 이것이 관련성이 있고 도입부에 쥐어짜는 것일까? --아흐메도 셈수르(토크) 12:20, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자가 공감대를 구하도록 토크 페이지를 이용하도록 설득하는 것은 효과가 없고[32] 야지디스에서의 무모한 편집은 이미 기사를 많이 정리하지 않았다. --아메도 셈수르(토크) 01:08, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

앞서 말했듯이, 모든 정보가 기사 도입에 포함되어야 하는 것은 아니다.이것에 대한 몇 가지 섹션이 있다.특히 그 기원이 논란이 되는 이 주제에 대해서는 더욱 그렇다.어제부터 당신은 일부러 편집전을 운영하여 소싱된 정보를 제거하고 나에게 POV 푸시를 고발한다.내가 두 개의 템플릿을 제거했기 때문에 당신은 나를 여기에 보고했었다.그리고 행정관이 이미 알아차린 대로 족제비 말이나 OR도 없었고 모든 것이 제대로 조달되었다.나는 당신이 단지 개인적인 목적을 위해 정보에 만족하지 않고 의도적으로 잘못 전달하고 있다고 생각한다.91.236.142.212 (대화) 01:27, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

설명:문제의 기사를 읽지 않은 사람으로서, 이것은 대부분 내용 분쟁인 것 같다.나는 91.236.142.212가 분명히 대화 페이지의 상호작용을 거부하고 있는 것이 여기서 유일한 실재라고 느낀다.그래서, 아마도 그것에 초점을 맞출 수 있을까? 91.236.142.212, 왜 당신은 이 모든 것을 토크 페이지에서 말하지 않는가?로키(토크) 03:51, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

제3의견 수용 거부

극성 사용자 페이지

비RS가 사이언톨로지 기사에 반복적으로 스팸 발송

COI 및 다중 계정

• 쇼넨부크 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• SBeukes (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Rtsclement (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
• Aspen Pharmacare(대화 기록 편집 보호 로그 보기 보기 링크 삭제)

ShaunenBeukes는 Aspen Pharmacare의 마케팅 매니저와 이름 일치한다.그 계정은 스팸 발송으로 차단되었고 COI 약정에 따라 차단되지 않았다.Rtsclement는 그 직후에 나타났으며, WP이다.SPA. 2019년 2월에 새로운 계정 SBeukes가 등록되었다.COI 선언은 이루어지지 않았다.이것은 Aspen 기사의 메인 스페이스 편집을 수행했다.이 경우에 나는 속이고 싶다.다른 사람들은 어떻게 생각하는가?이것들은 물론 CU에 대한 것이 다 낡아서 WP:덕. 가이 (도움말!) 17:34, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

(비관리자 논평) 첫 번째 계정이 2년 이상 오래된 것이기 때문에 이것이 실제로 양말 처리로 간주되는지는 잘 모르겠지만, 첫 번째 사용자의 COI 동의에 대한 꽤 명백한 위반이다.아마 그들은 첫 번째 계정을 잊고 새로운 계정을 만들었을 것이고, 누가 알겠는가, 그 당시 COI 회담에 대해서도 잊어버렸을 것이다.WP의 이름으로:AGF 나는 새로운 계정에 COI 경고에 대답할 기회를 한 번 주고 싶다(아마도 이전 계정을 지적하는 것이 도움이 될 것이다) 만약 그들이 그것을 인정하지 않거나 계속 편집하지 않는다면 망신을 버리겠다.그렇긴 하지만, 두 번째 계정은 반년이 지난 상태라 더 이상의 조치는 기대하지 않는다.크레펫 (토크) 17:41, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• 돌팔이 소리가 너무 커서 아프다.모든 옷단들의 유일한 목적은 이 한 회사를 홍보하는 것이고, 그들 중 어느 누구도 다른 주제를 편집하지 않았다.그러니 금지하고 끝내라. --BrownHairdGirl (대화) • (출연) 17:44, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]
• 나는 네가 왜 지금 이것에 관심이 있는지 이해가 안 가.사용자 중 2명은 2017년에 마지막으로 편집했고, 나머지 2명은 약 6개월 전에 편집했다.개인적으로 아무도 막지 않을 것이다.--Bb23 (대화) 18:03, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

왜냐하면 나는 스스로 발행한 출처를 검토하면서 기사를 접했고, 그것이 대부분 스팸이라는 것을 알아차렸기 때문이다.Guy (Help!) 20:59, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그들의 미트푸페트리 상태나 미트푸페트리 위반으로 인해 제비를 막지 못할 이유가 전혀 없어, 가이.마케팅 스팸을 더 추가하고 싶을 때는 다른 계정을 만들 것이라고 예상하지만 --RexxS (토크) 19:49, 2019년 8월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:SashiRolls 및 WP:ASPERSions

@SashiRolls: 오늘 아침 그들의 토크 페이지에 나타난 인신공격에 대해 내가 어떤 식으로든 책임이 있다는 것을 암시해 왔고, 나는 다른 곳에서 편집한 것에 대해 그들을 "붙이고 있다"고 말했다.상당히 심각한 고발이기 때문에, 관리자들이 볼 수 있도록 먼저 가서 데려오는 것이 이치에 맞는다고 생각한다.

나는 이전에 사시롤스에게 다른 편집자들에게 유사한 질책을 가하는 것을 자제해 달라고 부탁한 적이 있는데, 그들은 이미 아일리로부터 "개인적인 논평 없음" 제재를 받은 것으로 보인다.그러므로 최소한 누군가가 WP:AGF는 아마도 다른 편집자들이 편집에 대해 그들을 공격하거나 처벌하기 위해 음모를 꾸미고 있다는 암시를 금지할 것이다.은블룬드 ^talk 21:21, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

확실히 하자:나는 네가 내 토크 페이지에 썼다고 생각하지 않아.너는 다른 곳에서 바빴어.나는 괴롭힘을 당해서 짜증이 난다.사람들이 괴롭힘을 당하는 것에 대해 동정심이 없다면, 그건 괜찮아.의미 없는 WP를 시작하여 추가하지 마십시오.ANI 나사산.

나는 Talk에서 톤의 공격성을 허락한 것에 대해 사과한다.툴시 가바드는 내 피부 속으로 파고든다.로그아웃한다.〇 사시롤스 21:36, 2019년 8월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

So Sashi receives a personal attack that had to be rev deleted and somehow it makes sense for you to bring them to this noticeboard? This should be closed. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious comments from Sashi that could have been read a couple of ways; they were however understandably annoyed, and have now clarified what they meant and apologised. Agree with Mr Ernie that this should be closed. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they tell me they "didn't appreciate" it on my user page despite the fact that it had nothing to do with me? And then to ask me whether they were being punished for editing elsewhere? SashiRolls clarified that they don't believe I personally edited their talk page, but they've clearly got it in their heads that they are being targeted with some kind of coordinated harassment. And they reference it constantly in a way that seems to imply that everyone who disagrees with them is engaged in a conspiracy. They didn't actually apologize for anything in particular other than for being angry (which isn't something to apologize for) and they blamed it on an "aggressive tone" from unspecified others. Nblund ^talk 22:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I ought to apologise to you, Nblund, for having given the impression that I didn't take your concerns seriously. I don't know the history and background here, I just read the diff you posted, which I agree was worded in such a way as to imply that you might have had something to do with it. Sashi responded above saying that they accepted you had nothing to do with it, noted that they had allowed the comments to get under their skin, and (as I read it) apologised for responding in the way that they did. Personally, I think that's a sufficient response for this particular event; if there is a history of other stuff that I'm not aware of, then obviously my opinion is poorly informed and should be discounted. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Nblund, it should be noted that and somehow it makes sense for you to bring them to this noticeboard? was unfair and inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I should elaborate a little on what I think is the core issue: Sashi is trying to comply with the letter of the "No personal comments" sanction but still fundamentally believes that editors are conspiring to disrupt AP32. So the editing takes the form of various iterations of "I'm not saying you're a paid sock, but..." This comment, for instance, makes a round-about insinuation about paid editing, while also including a comment about being "an ABD student not writing their dissertation" - which is a reference (the third such reference 1 2) to the sole piece of personal information I've placed on my user page.

Regardless of whether it is intentional, the fundamental problem is that Sashi seems to filter lots of stuff through the lens of an off-wiki conspiracy involving the DNC...or something along those lines. That viewpoint colors their interactions with other editors, and so they do stuff like attribute a bit of vandalism to a coordinated punishment, or immediately raise questions about off-wiki coordination this (see last line) as soon as a new editor disagrees with them. If Sashi feels they're being mischaracterized here, I'm open to hearing it, but the statement "I don't think you wrote on my talk page" is not really a repudiation of the insinuation that I'm involved of some broader harassment campaign. Nblund ^talk 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a rough chronology of events:

1. I was insulted twice by an SPA who was later blocked for 48 hours for two egregious personal attacks.
2. I mentioned the insult which took place at exactly the moment I had an edit-conflict (with you) trying to slow down your deletions at Tulsi Gabbard, a page where certain issues have been rehashed over and over and over. I provided a link to the insult.
3. You didn't say anything about the attack, which struck me as strange, because putting myself in your shoes I would have said something along the lines of "Geez, that's lame!" (and meant it) before moving on to cordial discussion about any issues.
4. As I tried to explain why I did not agree with your deletion, the assumptions of bad faith started piling up:
   1. The reason above seems transparently non-neutral. I suspect the reason this article has so much WP:CRUFT is because editors have done exactly this "if I can't remove it, I'll just add more crap to balance it out" in the past.
   2. Her links to him [Modi] obviously go far beyond that, so it's really misleading to portray the debate that way. here you have to know the context a bit, the gist of which is that there is an article which claims Gabbard is a Hindu nationalist because she has Indian-American donors & Nblund wants to remove text about Gabbard's withdrawal from the 2018 World Hindu Congress in Chicago because there was too much Indian partisan politicking going on (in other words evidence directly contrary to the article's thesis). Though I didn't add this bit, I do think it should stay in the article.
   3. Obviously we can't just copy-paste her entire stump speech here... just after you posted here, included just to give an idea of your style
   4. Forcing readers to bust out the corkboard and yarn to track down Pepe Silvia is not really going to improve the encyclopedia. one of your two final comments last night, about which it is worth noting that the end result of the discussion was a concise presentation of encyclopedic material, which had been neglected up to that point: [37]

Your cutting campaign on TG started with your first edit Saturday morning, which led me to think it might be related to your last edit Friday night (which had been to the page I was working on then, which xtools shows was your first ever edit to HRC's BLP (§))

I'm human. Seeing all the killing and raping and profiteering evil in the world I have a dimmer view of human nature than is always & everywhere compatible with the assumption of good faith en.wp asks us to aspire to, that is to say, even when people are following us around the encyclopedia, popping up on pages they've never edited before to make weird insinuations about someone apparently known as Pepe Silvia. I'm sorry that I'm imperfect in that way.

If I am permitted to speak frankly, it was your lack of any sign of compassion concerning my being called a "fascist scumbag moron" that probably was the strongest factor motivating my reaction (the link had not been revdelled when I shared it with you).

I apologize for my limitations and hope I have not hurt your feelings. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 04:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an isolated incident. Just from the past few weeks:

• When I reverted an edit SashiRolls made on Jill Stein, they immediately leaped to confronting me only slightly-veiled WP:ASPERSIONS about WP:MEAT, here, at the end of their paragraph here, and here. I assume this is also a dig at me given the timeframe (immediately after the edits above.) Also, presuming that's the case, the fact that SashiRolls apparently still considers me a "gamergate user", five years (!) after that dispute was at its peak, shows a bit of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.
• On Talk:Hillary Clinton, repeatedly accusing people of WP:GAMING, here, here (There is a long history of trying to prevent the encyclopedic recording of information about the Clinton's role as power-brokers in Haiti on en.wp, While I am not optimistic, I do hope there will be no further gaming of consensus.)
• On their talk, this: Not to worry, you'll teach Snoog right from wrong, won't you Mr. Willey? That's all that's needed... a clever fellow like you to patiently explain to them what they're doing wrong? It makes for good theatre, while everybody's looking, that's for sure, Mr. Willey. And here: (just another Pinocchio for your collection, eh?) And the edit summary here: fair enough. please ping me next time you go running to an admin to complain about something that is not your business. thank you.
• Directly above this comment, the hope I have not hurt your feelings; others can weigh in on the tone of that, but I thought I'd call attention to it.

This is, again, just from the past few weeks (and SashiRolls was blocked for part of that time.) American politics is a fraught topic area, and it's natural to get frustrated or for tempers to flare when dealing with editors whose views on a controversial topic (and, therefore, sources, appropriate WP:TONE, WP:DUE weight, initial assumptions about what sources are likely to say, and so on) substantially differs; that's true for everyone. But part of the way we navigate that gap is through WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and by trying to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct or thinking about things along battleground lines. I think it's clear SashiRolls is way too quick to leap to assuming bad faith, especially along WP:BATTLEGROUND lines, and that their conversations with people they perceive as being on the wrong side of that battleground is often barbed to the point of incivility. --Aquillion (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting that you've spent so much time scouring through my talk page, Aquillion (half of the diffs you present are from there). I'll reciprocate with some questions, answers, and data-driven analysis. You say I was referring to you when I was chuckling about someone comparing EEML to AP2. Nothing in my text would lead anyone but you to think that, though you are in fact correct: I had just learned "Gamergate controversy" was the article you've invested by far the most time in on en.wp, so it was indeed fresh in my mind. I notice that you changed the corrected "gamergate-savvy user" back to the version with a typographical error, which I'd fixed because "gamergate user" sounded dehumanizing and mean. Again, though, only you could have known who I might be referring to with that comment. At the time, I had no reason to believe you were policing my talk page.
• In half of the diffs from mainspace you present as containing incriminating evidence there is the question "What brought you to the Jill Stein article for the first time today?" Could you answer that question? It's strange how you and Nblund have both showed up on articles you'd never edited before involving Snooganssnoogans. It's true I have been injured in AP2 before, I am used to the tactics used. This is why I'm particularly attentive to the sudden arrival of seasoned battlers, such as yourself, on talk pages.
• The other half do not refer to any user in particular. What I'm referring to are the long and tedious debates over Caracol Industrial Park that took place in 2016 on a number of different pages, where goalposts were constantly being shifted and no number of RS was enough to convince people that the subject was worthy of encyclopedic interest, despite the scholarly interest in the initiative.
• You added "battle" in bold blue letters twice in your final paragraph and three five times total in your post (!) Are you thinking of that recent Slate article describing en.wp as a place where brutal, petty battles take place? ("Donald Trump's Wikipedia article is a war zone" §). With 81 edits, Talk:Donald Trump is your fifth most edited talk page. Just as a stylistic matter, notice that there were No Big Blue words in my statement above.

the FWIW Appendix: your editor interaction analysis with Nblund [38], with Snoogans [39]

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls: please use diffs when you're quoting conversations elsewhere, and make sure you're accurately characterizing discussions. I want to highlight that, despite all of the blame shifting, you're essentially doubling down on the behavior that prompted me to bring you to ANI. You're acknowledging that you failed to assume good faith about me (and now Aquillion and Snoogans). You've actually acknowledged that your dimmer view of human nature renders you incapable of consistently following WP:AGF in general, which is a problem for WP:AP2.

I made a grand total of two edits to the Hillary Clinton talk page. My primary contribution was to point out that the information you wanted in the article was already there, and that was enough for me to make your ever-growing enemies list. This equally benign edit to TALK:Jill Stein apparently was sufficient for you to add Aquillion as well. I can't think of a nicer way to describe this other than "paranoia", and it makes you pretty much impossible to work with. Nblund ^talk 15:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask Aquillion how they came to make this edit, their first ever, to that article. It does look like tag team editing to me. In fact, to me, that edit and the preceding and subsequent edits look exactly like the kind of problematic AP2 editing that is the subject of ongoing threads at BLPN and AN. (Let me know if you want me to diff this, but I think everyone knows what I'm talking about.) @NBlund: that paranoia you speak of may be justified. – Levivich 15:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, Aquillon is fairly active in AP2 related areas. A few hours before they edited Jill Stein, they were editing Federation for American Immigration Reform, Colcom Foundation, Center for Immigration Studies, Media bias in the United States, Talk:Ilhan Omar then not long before that their edits included [[Antifa (United States)]‎] and Ryan Houck. Point being, Aquillion ending up at Jill Stein doesn't seem particularly surprising or require any form of conspiracy. I make no comments on their edits since that's part of my point. If Aquillion's editing is problematic that's what we should be focusing on not weird conspiracy theories. Frankly it doesn't make much sense to me even given a dim view of human nature to come up with wacky conspiracy theories of this sort. If anything, there being some guiding force behind it is if anything in some ways more comforting than what's far more likely to be the case, people genuinely believe, support and want to advocate whatever you think is bad and wrong, and they make it there by some set of 'random' set of circumstances to 'oppose' you. In fact an episode of South Park comes to mind, but I digress. Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(conflict) Asking editors who are active in AP2 why they are editing Jill Stein is a pointless question, but maybe understandable. Asking it twice is pushing it. Asking twice, and then kvetching repeatedly, is starting to get obnoxious. Kvetching, and then complaining in an ANI thread that the editor noticed that you were casting aspersions is a sign of someone who just doesn't get it.

I don't think I'm the subject of any of those discussions, and I can tell you on no uncertain terms that Sashi's paranoia around me is absurd. I've had (civil) disagreements with both editors mentioned here. My cuts to Tulsi Gabbard removed negative text, positive text, and (most importantly) text that had been rendered incoherent by slow motion edit warring. Reasonable people might disagree with some of them, but I don't see how any reasonable editor could view them as a "punishment". If an editor automatically interprets good faith content disagreements as a personal persecution then they shouldn't be editing in the area. Nblund ^talk 16:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) And while I'm somewhat confused about which article Nblund edited that is of concern, if it is Hillary Clinton that's an even weirder thing to be concerned about. Beyond a similar level of involvement in AP2 areas, Nblund is also active at BLPN which includes this thread Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again which I guess Sashirolls is aware of since they participated in it. Clinton was mentioned there. Although frankly even nearly 2 years after the 2016 US presidential election, it seems to be Clinton is comes up enough that someone ending up in that article shouldn't be in any way surprising.

As a final comment, I'm sure I'm not the only one who sometimes reads comments left to me quickly and doesn't necessarily bother to check out diffs. And I would add that 'the link had not been revdelled when I shared it with you' does not mean 'link had not been revdelled when I tried to check it out'.

Maybe more importantly, it's already been pointed out that the wording of the comment wasn't the best, it seems reasonable to AGF that Nblund genuinely felt they were been accused of sharing some responsibility or involvement in the attack. Frankly if I'd read that I probably would have felt the same. If someone falsely accused me of such, my sympathy for them for the attack is going to be greatly reduced. A simple comment like 'I apologise if I haven't handled things well, I've been in a foul mood since I received this attack' or something similar is far more likely to garner sympathy than the comment that was left.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snoog 1, Snoog 2, Snoog 3, Aquillion 4, which was Aquillion's first ever edit to Jill Stein[40]. I'm not saying there's ill intent there, but it's not unreasonable to draw conclusions of cooperation or ask the question. It's not like it's the only time: S1, S2, A3, which was the only edit Aquillion has ever made to William Barr[41]; S1, A2, which was the only edit Aquillion has ever made to Brexit[42]. Aquillion does, in fact, sometimes seem to show up "out of the blue" just to "back up" Snoog in a content dispute or edit war. I don't think it's fair to characterize Sashi questioning this as engaging in conspiracy theories. – Levivich 17:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich: If SashiRolls was just asking reasonable questions we wouldn't be here. Seriously: do you think SR is the only editor who ever wonders if they're being tag-teamed in WP:AP2? I suspect most editors have had the experience you're describing (I certainly have) and yet most editors in WP:AP2 are not constantly hurling accusations at everyone they interact with, and most don't have a block log like this. Nblund ^talk 22:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is your sixth comment in this thread. Again, I am sorry to have asssociated you with Bulldog Antz's comment. Now, I'd like to ask that you focus on your own behaviour. I do not appreciate you using my minor edits for wikilawyering purposes (as you did just some hours ago here).

What happened: a contributor added a lot of detailed text, one minor part of which remained unreferenced (after x, y¹) where (¹) supported only y. I removed after x, asking for a reference; they supplied the reference. Then you counted their contribution of after x² as a reversion of my edit, and counted it against them for 1RR purposes on their talk page. Seriously?

This is a good concrete example of one of the tactics that I really dislike in AP2. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: if there are multiple examples, this could be presented in an appropriate case. But, and I was considering saying this with my earlier replies, there's a reason we generally require multiple examples of any suggestions of inappropriate following or harassment. Coincidences can easily happen especially when, the articles involved are prominent and well within the normal editing patterns of the editor. In addition to ensuring fairness to the accused contributors by not accusing them of wrong doing without good evidence, it also ensures focus. And again there seems to be a good example here of why this is the case.

Even if Aquillion really is inappropriately teaming up against SashiRolls, I have seen zero evidence that Nblund is doing likewise. By accusing everyone who ever deals with you of being part of some malicious gang, you effectively undermine the credibility of possible genuine problem, 'the boy who cries wolf' like. Remember also what Nblund said in reply. Editors are entitled to feel however they wish. The problem becomes when it spills over into wikipedia. I'm sure plenty of people have seen editors and wonder why they got involved, but most try their best to put it aside and not let it colour the way their interact and edit. They especially don't go accusing every person and their dog of being part of some malicious gang.

@SashiRolls: Read what I said to Levivich especially the part about focus. If you want us to concentrate on possible problems with other editors, it would help a great deal if you stop distracting us with problems you cause. This means you really need to dial back on the accusations against others of inappropriately working together without good evidence.

Also, while you have our greatest sympathy for personal attacks you have suffered and will take them into account when considering your behaviour, remember they are only a minor excuse for poor behaviour and especially for poor behaviour against those who weren't involved. As I mentioned before, you shouldn't expect everyone to express sympathy every time you are attacked because even though they hopefully do have sympathy, there's plenty of reasons why they won't express it including that they never saw the attack. Notably as I said, if you have even if unintentionally connected someone uninvolved to the attack with the way you worded your comment, there should be no surprise that they don't express sympathy. I mention this because while you have said sorry for associating Nblund with the attack, earlier you still brought up the lack of any expressed sympathy which still seems very weird to me, especially when you've inadvertently associated them with the attack. And you didn't say something like 'how I felt at the time. Now I see how my comment was interpreted, I'm hardly surprised they didn't express sympathy'.

IMO it's unlikely anything concrete is happening from this thread. I would suggest you go back to working with other editors to the best of your abilities. If you have concerns, either talk about them politely with the editor directly, or if you feel they require administrative action, gather the necessary evidence and present it in a new case somewhere appropriate sometime in the future. In doing do, I strongly suggest you focus on the biggest problems and ensure you have sufficient evidence. It would help greatly if you ensure we don't also have to look at your behaviour. So maybe do your best to improve where you can and even wait a few months if possible.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Good conclusion, Nil Einne. Sashi apologized and explained their position. Many of us who have edited in the AP2 topic area know it’s a powder keg which may explain User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions#No personal comments and thicker skin sanctions. I will also add that my experiences with Aquillon got off to a rocky start, but we worked through it rather quickly. It was an uplifting experience that resulted in mutual respect. I’m of the mind that in the end, mutual respect is what it all boils down to. We should be thanking our luck stars that we all don’t share the same opinions and like the same things - Christmas shopping is bad enough now! ^Atsme _Talk 📧

@SashiRolls: I left a politely worded note on the user page of a week-old single purpose account which had broken 1RR and hadn't used an edit summary or the talk page to explain their reverts. All I did was explain the policy and ask them to use the talk page before more reversions. That's not wikilawyering. It's how editors normally interact. Frankly, I don't think your apology counts for much since you're coupling it with yet more frivolous complaints, but I'm really not looking for an apology anyway. Just focus on content instead of other users, and if you have an actual complaint supported by evidence, either bring it to ANI and supply diffs, or keep it to yourself. It's not a big ask. Nblund ^talk 12:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One final point, while my comment was primarily directed at SashiRolls because of how this thread panned out, by no means should it be restricted to them. If you keep opening threads and complaining about another editor's behaviour no action results, consider first whether there is really a problem that warrants attention. If you're quite sure there is, then gather the evidence and do your best to post a focused but compelling case somewhere appropriate sometime in the future. But at the same time, be on the watchout for your behaviour to the best of your abilities. Us spending a lot of time looking at your behaviour is a good way for a thread to be derailed from whatever legitimate concerns you may have. At the very least, it can mean when people look at it they go 'this is a mess, I can't be bothered working out who did what wrong'. I'm particularly thinking of another editor often on the opposite side of SashiRolls who has been named but has not participated in this thread. (Won't name them as I'm not sure they were notified and this thread doesn't have much to do with them.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fekusheku WP:NOTHERE

Frustrating experience with an SPA - WP:NOTHERE

Rangeblock request for LTA

Have an active LTA causing disruption and revert timesinks to a large number of articles in the country music, radio, name and school categories. Their main trends include:

1. Not following WP:SUBCAT hierarchy and double categorization (ex: [61])
2. Creating talk pages for non-existent articles (ex: Talk:WOCG_(FM))
3. Adding the Category:Living people to deceased people (ex: [62])
4. Adding of "current" callsigns to the "former_callsigns" in the infobox of radio articles, plus marking former in the future (ie: former until 2020) (ex: [63])
5. Adding parent categories to "Name" articles/disambiguations (ex: [64])
6. Adding non–existent/unverified schools to education sections of geographic areas (ex: [65])
7. Inappropriate categories (ie: adding singer–songwriter to a non-musician)(ex: [66])

For details please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Country music category vandal from Tennessee.

The majority of vandalism have come from the following IPs:

1. 2603:3018:B00:A00... (ex: User:2603:3018:B00:A00:D8A7:FCA1:6FAE:5282)
2. 2600:6C5D:577F... (ex: User:2600:6C5D:577F:EF45:6129:E694:7120:BB1B)
3. 2601:483:101:7ADC... (ex: User:2601:483:101:7ADC:6967:BFF7:D43B:25B8)
4. 68.187.22... (ex: User:68.187.22.153)
5. 96.38.44... (ex: User:96.38.44.162)
6. 75.130.122... (ex: User:75.130.122.66)
7. 68.53.55... (ex: User:68.53.55.40)
8. 97.81.164... (ex: User:97.81.164.152)
9. 97.82.85... (ex: User:97.82.85.26)
10. 174.250... (ex: User:174.250.142.149)
11. 174.255... (ex: User:174.255.192.156)

Respectfully submitted, --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to post links to some diffs, or their specific IPs. 174.250.0.0/16 and 174.255.0.0/16 are massive ranges. 65,534 addresses in each of those. - Frood(talk!) 22:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added an example of each to the lists above, plus added another trend. There will be multiple instances for each range set. As for those last two ranges, I just added all the multiple appearance IPs to the list. Even if left unblocked hopefully the majority of others would help decrease need to reverting as often. Specific IPs can be found at their LTA.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 23:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 97.81.164.152 (talk·contribs) for one month based on the report above but don't mind if another admin wants to make it longer. The most distinctive feature is the playing around with categories of country music performers. As expected, we have here an edit to put a deceased performer into the category of living people. I've also blocked Special:Contributions/174.250.142.0/24 for one month. This change from Cassimir to Cassimer is against the most common spelling of the ship's name found on Google so is most likely vandalism. I've also semiprotected Riley Green (singer), and take note of a well-intentioned registered editor who says "All IP edits on country discography are automatically reverted and I will NOT stop". This goes well beyond our policies but the sentiment is understandable. To see the editor's reasoning you could look at the history of that article and try to figure out which (if any) of the many IP edits are likely to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it'd be worth it to get an edit filter for this. It seems like it'd be fairly easy to get a filter that tags/warns since the edits are so predictable. - Frood (talk!) 03:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack90s15 and WP:CIR

Jack90s15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an user with voluminous edits to various World War II topics. He registered in September 2018, and has been blocked three times for disruptive editing and socking. But the biggest issue is WP:CIR. For instance, he has been asked to properly add signatures several times since October 2018 (1, 2, 3, 4), yet as recently as this month in a thread about Jack90s15 biting newbies, he again failed to properly add a signature. He currently has four "preceding unsigned comment was left by Jack90s15" templates on his talkpage alone.

Additionally, he has been asked to stop reverting himself in the past. Yet as of today, he made almost 150 consecutive edits in Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, which included several instances of edit-warring with himself. Just look at that page history. Many of his edit summaries are incompherensible, such as this: on page 9/ On the basis of biological conditions, it can be assumed that, statistically speaking, about every tenth sexual intercourse results in a swan. On the talk page, Jack90s15 stated that the mistake happened because he was using Google translate. No wonder there are difficulties understanding his edit summaries and talk page messages.

More seriously, he has been falsifying sourced information in the past:[67][68][69][70] He just changed numbers that had a citation without changing the source. I brought this up on Jack's talk page. In that thread, Nick-D had an apt comment: Jack90s15, this is getting ridiculous. This talk page is a long-running series of messages asking you to stop messing up articles. To be blunt, you are not competent to be editing in the fields you are editing. The same patterns keep repeating themselves. Exactly what WP:CIR is about. This was in March, and the same issues mentioned above keep happening. It is a massive time sink to keep scrutinizing such voluminous edits, so I think some administrative action is needed.--Pudeo (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This user assisted with the recent GAN of Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and was a net positive. While there were a lot of edits recently on that article there wasn't any vandalism and the reader wouldn't have noticed anything at all. Szzuk (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• While I found Jack90s15's early editing to be problematic for a range of reasons, what I've seen of their recent editing has been consistently good. This has included some very sensible edits to the very high profile World War II article, as well as other articles on sensitive topics. As they have responded positively to earlier comments about their editing, I'm not seeing any reason for this to have been brought here. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He literally just reverted himself 41 times in a 24 hours span in Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. I suppose that technically does not break the 3RR, but it's still making a mess. He still doesn't understand Wikipedia formatting. Seems like a WP:HTD option to say he's a net-positive. --Pudeo (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you hoping to achieve by attacking me? Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• At the very least, Jack90s15 needs to stop changing reliably sourced information and recognise that sources can differ on details, and that we compare and contrast the sources when that occurs, not just go with the source we prefer. He also needs to work out how to type four tildes, he's been here long enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello @Pudeo: @Szzuk: @Peacemaker67: @Nick-D: I hope you all are having a great Day or night wherever you are!. I will address the concerns that have been made, I was not falsifying those edits at the time they where based off of sources and 1 was a mistake. For the Hitler page I added the source to page where I got the number.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For the Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin for the edit with the colonies that was an honest mistake, the other one was when the page was being built up with @C.J. Griffin: @Paul Siebert: @Woogie10w: and for that we all worked together to make sure the sources were Correct.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• for the Soviets In World War II at the time I hyper linked it to where the number came from I should have added the source to.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• for all my older edits I was not making numbers out of Thin air they were all based off of a source and one was a honest mistake.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been Continuously removing Vandalism from Wikipedia and undoing edits of people trying to blank pages, and fighting Sock puppets in no way am I trying to falsifying any information on wikipedia. I have Gotten many thanks from people who have seen me fight people who have been doing that @Everedux: @LightandDark2000: @Path slopu: @Chetsford: @S0091: @Favonian: @MPS1992:.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have had recent disagreements with users @Kierzek: @Obenritter: and I did talk to them to see what could be done and I was Given a handful of good advice that I am going to do.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For myth of the clean Wehrmacht page I was just trying to get to last picture not to go into the other section Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize to everyone for my older edits coming off as me trying to make things up Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Another example of this user's incompetence or carelessness occurred a week ago when he moved another user's talk page from User talk:PlanespotterA320 into mainspace as PlanespotterA320. He said that his adopter was teaching him how to move a page. If he has an adopter, I would hope that the adopter would keep a careful eye on what the user is doing. - David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User @PlanespotterA320: is my adopter they were showing me how to move a page that is why I did that I was seeing if I had the process down. It was a honest mistake when trying to lean something new @David Biddulph: Jack90s15 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: I tried explaining to him how to move something from his sandbox to the mainspace. Clearly he did not understand. I think it would be best that from now on he avoid page moving, (perhaps sticking to drafting in a sandbox and then asking for the text to be added once it's finished)?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @PlanespotterA320: @David Biddulph: that sounds like a plan I do understand the concept right now. But I would be more then happy to Stick to that till the community as confidence in me doing thatJack90s15 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen Jack90s15's numerous anti-vandalism edits which are good stuff. And yes, he generally is a nice person in discussions. I just don't see him having learned much. Not a big fan of what's happening right now at Rape during the occupation of Germany, which essentially is insertion of primary sources and a mess at the talk page. The pattern is clear: sourcing issues, formatting issues, editing issues (such as self reverting, very numerous consecutive edits) in very controversial historical articles. All these combined, it's hard to monitor articles for quality. I spent a lot of time looking for the unsourced number changes back in February. I presented this case here as I best felt, and it's fine if you see him as a net-positive in these articles. But it's certainly something I will wash my hands of and move on. --Pudeo (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe Jack90s15 still has a lot to learn as to good editing and what constitutes a WP:RS source, but he does not do things out of malice. He seems to be trying to do better. Some good observation and discernment is what he needs to practice. And his anti-vandalism edits have been helpful. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pudeo: like I said with my older edits I was not making numbers out of Thin air they were all based off of a source and one was a honest mistake. For souring I do use proper sources now like for the myth of the clean Wehrmacht page. And when I saw the potential Sock puppet on that page I reported them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YMB29 If I got you mad at me I apologize.Jack90s15 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Jack is new to the WW2 topic and not fully aware of what is considered a good source...but they are learning and trying their best. Perhaps a reference mentor would help?--Moxy 🍁 20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: I wouldn't mind the extra help I am starting to get better with it. I did help with myth of the clean Wehrmacht page to make it a GA. The only reason I put that source Back was because it was there and it went to a Blank page.I did not know it was banned is there any app that shows you if a Site is banned?Jack90s15 (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor

User:Ngokevin rapid fire promotional campaign in progress

user:Mztourist's disruptive editing

Rangeblock necessary

user:Lesacrick

POV push and destruction of page

159.146.0.0

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

Someone working at the NFTA or close to it keeps adding unsourcedinformation 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They're blanked their userpage, removing the warnings and notifications that have piled up in a few hours. Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it 22:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it 22:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not claim to be a proficient sock detective, Oshwah, but sometimes things are obvious. Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it 07:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ophelia Lovibond#Filmography

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)[reply]

Hey u, Delhi moved to bhubaneswar odisha so I change it to Odisha FC officially Delhi announced that they are shifting to bhubaneswar.so u first to know about everything then u lodge a complaint to the administrator.Joel David 99 (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [142], September 2018 [143], and March 2019 [144], and two very similar edits to German diaspora, in October 2017 [145] and September 2018 [146]. 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: [147].

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.: [148] and [149]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IamNotU - No problem. :-) Don't worry... It may not be today, but if the user continues their shenanigans, we'll put a stop to it once the right time occurs. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

At it's core, the issue is not with the scientific value of User:Jean Louis Van Belle's research; it's simply a matter of following the Reliable Source policy (WP:RS). It boils down to just making sure that anything that we have in the article is linked to a source that qualifies under the text of that rule. That does not mean that anyone here wants to denigrate the quality or integrity of anyone's research, only that the rules of the site require us to follow the policy and only include sources that fit Wikipedia's specific, technical definition of a reliable source. Wikipedia is actually not intended to be a source for predictions (see WP:Crystal) or for preempting scientific discoveries -- to wit, it is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Michepman (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Averette and the Cuban sandwich

Hide these racist edits

Hide these racist edits

Impersonation by multiple IPs

Anon IP removing RS cites in order to violate BLP

Vandalism concerning the name of a family of unix based OSs

Gravedancing / Ignoring talk page request

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ivanvector and Oshwah: thanks for that - now back editing from a different range, 80.187.101.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

WP:AFDLISTIt 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think members of the Article Rescue Squadron should be careful about accusing other editors of canvassing given that they run a forum dedicated to canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A stunning comment from an administrator. I have taken note of your animosity and prejudice. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution - It seems like the core issue is that [[User:Storm[ failed to notify the creator of the articles that he nominated for deletion. Instead of closing those discussions en masse, a better solution might be to reach out to each of the creators and let them know about the discussion so that they can participate if they choose to do so. I don't think there's any need to close those discussions especially when the canvassing issue isn't a clear-cut bad faith attempt to game consensus. Michepman (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NRP here, although I also believe ARS does good work when members involved actually work on the article and do not simply go on with "passes GNG"-type arguments. I've seen both happen, I see that sort of canvassing as a double-edged sword imho. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK:. I did that last night. Posted the AfD template notice on talk pages of the many list creators. Lightburst (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TNT the current AFD and start over by nominating pages individually. The current "collection" of list pages in this AFD, to put it kindly, incoherent at best. My !vote addresses only the list page mentioned in the title/heading of the nomination, not the rest of the pages mentioned later, which seems to have changed since the AFD started (that alone is grounds for a procedural close). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stacking the notices is not just WP:Canvassing — and disenfranchising those who are not in line with the party line — it is itself an attack on the integrity of the whole WP:AFD process. It is unvarnished Ballot box stuffing. Vitiating the AFDs is one remedy. Sanctioning the perpetrator, who really ought to know better, is another. And both are justified under these circumstances. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 Com'on, you should know on which you are commenting. The bundle was already in place before your vote. Störm (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen, I don't know what are you talking about? Maybe you understood it wrong. Störm (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301

CentralTime301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has CIR/BATTLEGROUND issues that I believe need addressed here. He has been slowly edit warring on radio/TV station articles, notably WJCT (TV) and WYCN-LD where he repeatedly restores MOS violations. Cuchullain and Stereorock have made attempts to explain this on article and user talk pages; CentralTime301's replies indicate that he is not listening. (I became involved here, and reverted CentralTime301 on WJCT, because I have Cuchullain's talk page watchlisted.) He uses clearly false edit summaries (see this recent revert where he falsely claims to be "Removing unsourced content") and talk page warnings (see here). His attitude is blatantly battleground - note this section on "editing enemies" that they were recently told to remove from their userpage. In the past four days, he has also filed six bogus requests at RFPP, despite being told to stop by an admin there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Its because I want to make Wikipedia better, and to stop vandalism, please, I'll stop doing those things. The reason for the page protections? I use Twinkle to do that, but I'll stop these protections for now. CentralTime301 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does need to be dealt with, unfortunately. This is either a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue or an issue of competence. We at least need a strong warning to straighten up and fly right, and action if things don’t improve.—Cúchullain^t/c 02:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301, can you please explain the warning you left at User talk:RoboHeroTroll? You warned the editor about removing content when they had added content. Why did you do that? Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it 02:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cullen328 - It looks like User:RoboHeroTroll has been banned, possibly as retaliation or WP:Boomerang for the reference to this complaint here (reference diff). If that is this case and CentralTime301 was truly involved in engineering the block of this witness to his misconduct, then this is extremely disturbing and at minimum and abuse of the process. Michepman (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Michepman, RoboHeroTroll was blocked (correctly in my judgment) for a username violation. That does not change the fact that CentralTime301 gave them an incorrect warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301 Why did you add a protection template to an article that is not currently protected? FYI adding the template does not protect the article from being edited. Protection can only be placed on an article by an admin and you have to file a WP:RFPP for that to happen and, as mentioned above, they have to be legitimate requests. This does look like a WP:BATTLEGROUND action on your part.

MarnetteD Talk 06:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, this looks to me like an issue of good faith issues by this user. Helping the user by educating them and giving them the tools and the guidance to help the project seems to be the right solution here... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The user needs a brief application of the cluebat and maybe some supervision (and a lesson on threading...), but this seems to be misguided good faith. Adoption candidate, maybe? creffett (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock request

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ivanvector and Oshwah: thanks for that - now back editing from a different range, 80.187.101.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

WP:AFDLISTIt 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think members of the Article Rescue Squadron should be careful about accusing other editors of canvassing given that they run a forum dedicated to canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A stunning comment from an administrator. I have taken note of your animosity and prejudice. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution - It seems like the core issue is that [[User:Storm[ failed to notify the creator of the articles that he nominated for deletion. Instead of closing those discussions en masse, a better solution might be to reach out to each of the creators and let them know about the discussion so that they can participate if they choose to do so. I don't think there's any need to close those discussions especially when the canvassing issue isn't a clear-cut bad faith attempt to game consensus. Michepman (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with NRP here, although I also believe ARS does good work when members involved actually work on the article and do not simply go on with "passes GNG"-type arguments. I've seen both happen, I see that sort of canvassing as a double-edged sword imho. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK:. I did that last night. Posted the AfD template notice on talk pages of the many list creators. Lightburst (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TNT the current AFD and start over by nominating pages individually. The current "collection" of list pages in this AFD, to put it kindly, incoherent at best. My !vote addresses only the list page mentioned in the title/heading of the nomination, not the rest of the pages mentioned later, which seems to have changed since the AFD started (that alone is grounds for a procedural close). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stacking the notices is not just WP:Canvassing — and disenfranchising those who are not in line with the party line — it is itself an attack on the integrity of the whole WP:AFD process. It is unvarnished Ballot box stuffing. Vitiating the AFDs is one remedy. Sanctioning the perpetrator, who really ought to know better, is another. And both are justified under these circumstances. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 Com'on, you should know on which you are commenting. The bundle was already in place before your vote. Störm (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen, I don't know what are you talking about? Maybe you understood it wrong. Störm (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301

CentralTime301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has CIR/BATTLEGROUND issues that I believe need addressed here. He has been slowly edit warring on radio/TV station articles, notably WJCT (TV) and WYCN-LD where he repeatedly restores MOS violations. Cuchullain and Stereorock have made attempts to explain this on article and user talk pages; CentralTime301's replies indicate that he is not listening. (I became involved here, and reverted CentralTime301 on WJCT, because I have Cuchullain's talk page watchlisted.) He uses clearly false edit summaries (see this recent revert where he falsely claims to be "Removing unsourced content") and talk page warnings (see here). His attitude is blatantly battleground - note this section on "editing enemies" that they were recently told to remove from their userpage. In the past four days, he has also filed six bogus requests at RFPP, despite being told to stop by an admin there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Its because I want to make Wikipedia better, and to stop vandalism, please, I'll stop doing those things. The reason for the page protections? I use Twinkle to do that, but I'll stop these protections for now. CentralTime301 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does need to be dealt with, unfortunately. This is either a serious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue or an issue of competence. We at least need a strong warning to straighten up and fly right, and action if things don’t improve.—Cúchullain^t/c 02:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301, can you please explain the warning you left at User talk:RoboHeroTroll? You warned the editor about removing content when they had added content. Why did you do that? Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it 02:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Cullen328 - It looks like User:RoboHeroTroll has been banned, possibly as retaliation or WP:Boomerang for the reference to this complaint here (reference diff). If that is this case and CentralTime301 was truly involved in engineering the block of this witness to his misconduct, then this is extremely disturbing and at minimum and abuse of the process. Michepman (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Michepman, RoboHeroTroll was blocked (correctly in my judgment) for a username violation. That does not change the fact that CentralTime301 gave them an incorrect warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CentralTime301 Why did you add a protection template to an article that is not currently protected? FYI adding the template does not protect the article from being edited. Protection can only be placed on an article by an admin and you have to file a WP:RFPP for that to happen and, as mentioned above, they have to be legitimate requests. This does look like a WP:BATTLEGROUND action on your part.

MarnetteD Talk 06:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, this looks to me like an issue of good faith issues by this user. Helping the user by educating them and giving them the tools and the guidance to help the project seems to be the right solution here... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The user needs a brief application of the cluebat and maybe some supervision (and a lesson on threading...), but this seems to be misguided good faith. Adoption candidate, maybe? creffett (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this open proxy

User:Yanagi Nakamura

Strange account

Requesting help after two days

Sitush and MJL

IP user is confusingly NOTHERE

Heliosgaming WP:NOTHERE

Awardmaniac violating topic ban

Date-changing vandal back again

Broken Cite News Templates all Over Wikipedia

I apologize in advance if this is not the correct noticeboard to report this, but someone has changed the Cite News templates and article citations are broken in articles all over Wikipedia.

These articles are examples to name a few. Just scroll down to the Citation sections and look over the breakage:

• 2019 El Paso shooting
• Tri-tip
• Brexit

and so on and so on ...

Every article on wikipedia seems affected (millions). Thanks in advance for reviewing this issue. I apologize if this is not the correct forum to bring this issue up. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Octoberwoodland: Known issue, it's under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_there_a_semi-automated_tool_that_could_fix_these_annoying_"Cite_Web"_errors?. ^creffpublic_{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It looks like the issue is nearing resolution. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlético Madrid

Can an admin help sort out the edit war going on, on the article please. Govvy (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MYS77 has been edit-warring with 173.130.240.225 both have gone way pass WP:3RR. Govvy (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been backed by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 89#B-team loans, and provided a more ellaborative explanation at User talk:173.130.240.225. I do reckon that I've breached WP:3RR (per said at User talk:Mattythewhite), but I don't get why I'm being reported since I'm acting according to the guidelines and so on. @Govvy:, what's your personal opinion over the subject? MYS77 ^✉ 20:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have rolled the article back how it stood before MYS77 edited it today. As my edit summary said, both editors are at peril of a 3RR block if they revert again. However, I welcome them to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MYS77: Has far as I am concerned you have stepped way over the line and my opinion is against yours anyway. Govvy (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: They're both over the line, IMHO. However, if they both pull back and discuss, then we have a properly functioning encyclopedia, and everybody can keep editing. If there is any further edit warring (or any other inappropriate behaviour), then necessary sanctions will be applied. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, C.Fred, hopefully, they can stop edit-warring, I really don't think I could get them to stop myself! I don't know why MYS77 is going on about consensus know, because there isn't any consensus for what he is doing, other editors have different opinions, but this was more about the behaviour which I wanted to stop. Govvy (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been taking care of Spanish football for a little while now, standardizing the pages and providing a better environment so everybody can understand it more easily. I've reached consensus before about the loan players, don't know why we should be reaching a consensus again, it seems tiring and involutive. The youth team players who appear in the main squad are those who participated in a first team match, and this approach is used on a lot of Spanish articles, not only by me but by a lot of other users. MYS77 ^✉ 21:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: [171][172][173]) and removing/altering punctuation indiscriminately (examples: [174][175][176][177]). Would it be possible (or appropriate) for an administrator to rollback his or her edits en masse? gnu57 02:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. MarnetteDTalk 02:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. MarnetteDTalk 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Oshwah: They are continuing to add/remove punctuation incorrectly, and there has been no communication. There are now about 30 articles, to which they have made the last edit, which are likely to need at least partial reversion. A block is desirable at this point. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just reverted this IP's improper addition of apostrophes to decades (e.g. "1950s" to "1950's"). If it isn't intentional disruption, it's incompetence, and the lack of response leaves a block as the only remaining option. --Sable232 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issued level-4 warning and reported to AIV. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The disruptive editing re-started almost immediately upon expiration of the block: [178] --Sable232 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked for a month, and today's contribs rolled back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion these edits are automated. Removing pairs of quotation marks, removing (not replacing) emdashes, adding spaces around = symbols in template parameters, removing periods from initialisms, all rapidly and indiscriminately, and without responding to discussion. This is a bot, and other than blocking the IP whenever it's active I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bill Josephs and Palestine

Bill Josephs (talk · contribs) has, on a number of occasions, changed State of Palestine to Territory of Palestine, specifically on LGBT rights in the State of Palestine. There are currently discretionary sanctions on articles relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict, and he seems intent on making this article fall under the "broadly construed" umbrella imo. He's been warned several times, including once of the sanctions. - Frood (talk!) 05:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating...~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edits made to LGBT rights in the State of Palestine by Bill Josephs have been disruptive, repeated, consistent, and have continued to occur despite numerous messages, warnings, and requests for him to stop. It's also clear that this disruption is unlikely to stop unless administrative actions are taken in order to intervene and set expectations. Due to the ongoing disruption reported here and what I've observed, I've imposed the use of discretionary sanctions and have topic banned the user from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli Conflict for three months. This will give Bill Josephs the opportunity to contribute positively elsewhere on Wikipedia, while imposing fair and necessary sanctions and actions to maintain an acceptable and collaborative editing environment without outright blocking the user. I'm hoping that this will put an end to the disruption and help Bill Josephs to grow and learn, and hopefully return after they've gained sufficient experience in order to appropriately contribute to this topic area. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Bill Josephs immediately violated your topic ban and I have blocked him for two weeks after a complaint at WP:AE. Bishonentalk 10:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen - Perfect, thank you for handling that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

What i mean was, there are tabloid news reporting in Chinese/Cantonese that accusing Ho as the mastermind of the incident, which such conspiracy theory cannot be added to the wikipedia as serious WP:BLP violation. While, SCMP, it is not my opinion but someone else that they had changed their political spectrum just like the take over of Sing Tao many years ago. But even SCMP, it did not have so called news article to say Ho is the "spiritual leader", hero or other wording, but reporting the accusation and fact that Ho had met the white mob suspects on that attack. As well as just like many pro-government politicians , voiced his opinions on protesters/so called rioters. Matthew hk (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And the articles had escalated to SPA farms. Ltyl, another SPA, started the article Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests and then start edit warring with other. See Special:Diff/913559919. I endorsed with 65.60.163.223's edit Special:Diff/913614187, as it is a wide spread accusation that documented in the news report. Matthew hk (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For context of Ltyl as SPA of another fraction, see also the Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests/Archive 5#Sources for the alleged violence/vandalism/abuses by protesters or their sympathisers and then the act of WP:POVFORK to create Aggressive and abusive tactics used by the protesters in the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests which was bold move and then nominated for Afd. See the wall of text at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. Matthew hk (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just point out that the WP:POVFORK charge is just a POV. No verdict in yet. Ltyl (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I lost track of all the changes. You have produced only two changes in your evidence. What I see is: I wrote the article; somebody changed it; I reverted it. That's all. That's hardly edit warring. If you think I'm missing something, please produce more evidence. What you have done at the moment is more like harassment, using nuisance litigation to stop others to make legitimate contributions Ltyl (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to explain as a new user, all of your contributions are related to 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests? Matthew hk (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't need to explain myself to you really... Are you saying SPAs are not allowed on WP? It suffices to say, I'm here to improve the articles, and I believe I have shown good faith in the discussions to reach consensus. You can show me evidence to prove the otherwise. Ltyl (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Criticism of the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• Reputation and controversies of Hong Kong Police
• List of early 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of July 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of August 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
• List of September 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests
  • This is getting to be a bit excessive. GMG^talk 16:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I admitted the article size of the original article had some problem , but after the split it may be cause even more problems. Matthew hk (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that anytime the a newspaper reports two or more people standing around in black tee-shirts, it is deemed due and must go in. These articles need paring back, but they need paring back by someone willing to be neutral and not just decide that anything that makes their camp look bad is undue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is pretty noticeable the violent acts of some of the protesters are absent in the article, but i am not sure the accusation on the police are still undue. But now the article had suffered from a very serious POVFork from both side of the protest. I also agree that some of the article need to be trimmed, and may be at least down to 10 article for this article series. Now in the cat there are 15 articles. Matthew hk (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.60.188.94 "Removing see also section"

Is there some way to roll-back all edits by this user and stop them from making more? -- GreenC 02:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and asked them to stop. – bradv🍁 02:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Bradv -- GreenC 04:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking/possible legal threat at Aero L-39NG

Promotion-only account

Off-wiki harassment of newspaper reporter, birthplace hoax regarding Scott Storch

User:RHaworth concerns

3rd party talk section blanking

Transphobic comments

Continued disruptive editing by User:Depay11

Hoax about the B-52's band singing "Time Warp"

Yeah, like the header says. The band never released a version of that song. Hoax examples:

• Aug 7 – Add the B-52's to "Time Warp"
• Aug 7 – Add "Time Warp" to B-52's
• Aug 12 – Re-add "Time Warp" to B-52's
• Aug 12 – Add "Time Warp" to Funplex album
• Aug 12 – Add "Time Warp" to B-52's discography
• Sep 5 – Re-add "Time Warp" to B-52's

Involved IPs:

• 2603:300C:1BF5:6000:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2600:387:0:9C2:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This person appears to be interested in the exact same topics as blocked User:Verone66, who evades his or her block with a great many IPs including Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93, Special:Contributions/96.73.113.37 and the above-listed range 2603:300C:1BF5:6000:0:0:0:0/64. The IP geolocations indicate a visit to Tennessee from Texas.

Can we get a rangeblock on two involved ranges? Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2603:300C:1BF5:6000::/64 hasn't been active since August. 2600:387 is a mobile IP range, so blocking a /64 won't do much good. On AT&T Wireless, people usually bounce around on a /59 or /60. I blocked the latest IP from that range. If it continues, I guess I can do a range block. It doesn't seem like there's collateral damage, but I didn't look very closely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shaggy12001

New editor, Shaggy12001 (talk · contribs), off to a very poor start. Behavior indicates that a warning may not be sufficient; I recommend some form of disciplinary action. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IllaZilla: With no edits for the last 16 hours or so, I don't it's severe enough to warrant action with no warning. I do agree that the edit summaries are unacceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for issuing them a warning. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've rev deleted the offensive edit summaries. Please report back if the warning has no effect. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, using {hlist} to add the second genre, is rather surprising for someone with supposedly only two previous edits. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrayan 2 a moon mission , Weather present situation is Communication disruption or Landing failure or Crashed ?

IP socking in edit wars

• WhiteStarG7 (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email)
• 94.66.59.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The user uses an IP sock to push the “UK first” thing over objections. Compare:

• [184] against [185],
• [186] against [187].

No significant doubt because the master is apparently Greek-speaking whereas the sock resolves to ppp-94-66-59-149.home.otenet.gr. Please, hard-block the IP (albeit enabling user_talk) and admonish the master. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even more impressive diff: comparison between revisions by two warrior’s personae in European_theatre_of_World_War_II. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Far as I can tell, the IP is denying the connecting to that account on Matt Lunker's talk page and Cassandrathesceptic's talk page. If it's clear they are connected, this is IMO strong evidence of abusive WP:sockpuppetry. While it's sometimes okay to edit logged out, as with multiple accounts if you are editing the same articles or highly related areas this definitely needs to be disclosed. While editor's understandable do not always want to connect their account with an IP, this then means you need to take due care. The occasional mistake may be excepted. But continuing both editing from your IP and you account in the same articles or otherwise highly related areas means you cannot disavow a connection. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Cassandrathesceptic was not notified yet so I did so. BTW, the user sub page User:Cassandrathesceptic/Scots Language should probably be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. Not sure if people feel it qualifies for U5 or it needs to be taken to MFD. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's honestly hard to tell wrt socking. There are countless IPs accross the TalkTalk ranges that rant endlessly about essentially this exact subject, who almost never cite sources, and refuse to sign their posts. Some of them are clearly Cassandra, and the IPs that admit to being Cassandra overlap in range with this particular IP user we are discussing. If they are actually different people, then it's just two different people who aren't being helpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I strongly disagree. Someone who keeps misattributing a contributor's views should be blocked per WP:NPA. If you're having trouble understanding someone you can seek clarification on what they meant. If you still keep misunderstanding then there is a simple solution. Stop attributing views to them. If an editor refuses to do so and instead keeps attributing to someone a view they do not hold, this effectively a personal attack and should be treated accordingly. That said, if this is mostly occuring on Mutt Lunker's talk page it would have been better for them to simply ban the IP from there and see if that stopped it first. If the IP kept posting to the user's talk page that is a simple block. If the IP instead started misattributing views elsewhere that's also a clearer block since someone cannot reasonably be expected to read and correct their views every time they are mentioned all over the place. Nil Einne (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To note, the misattribution of views by this particular IP are not restricted to my talk page but also at Talk:Hebrides#English-speaking and multiple threads at Talk:English people. I repeatedly asked them to desist at both and specifically requested they strike the comments at the latter.

If this is connected with Cassandrathesceptic and associated IPs, such misattributions are scattergunned across countless articles stretching back years. (Their earliest activity, that I am aware of, is in April 2012 as a string of roving IPs, the username account being a late acquisition, rarely used in the overall picture of their IP edits.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience personal attack has been limited to statements about what "you are", not what "you did" and certainly not what "you said". In any case, yours is the first reference to NPA, so you disagreed with a position I hadn't taken. ―Mandruss☎ 08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course falsely accusing someone of having a view they do not have is a personal attack. Otherwise I could say "Mandruss believes niggers are not human and all deserve to die" when you do not believe that and have never said anything to lead people to reasonably believe you believe that and it's not a personal attack simply because I never actually said you're a racist even though I think most people would prefer to be called a racist than to be falsely accused of having such a belief. In any case "There is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, or essay against "sustained misattribution of views" vs "you disagreed with a position I hadn't taken". You explicitly said there was no Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay rather than no "I am not aware of" or "no one has brought up a relevant policy" or any such thing. So you did explicitly say there was no such policy, guideline or essay which is clearly wrong, since it goes against NPA at a minimum. And I was not "disagreeing with a position that you hadn't taken" but instead disagreeing with a position you had taken namely "there is no Wikipedia policy, guideline, essay". So @Mandruss: when you're going to make up bullshit about what you actually said, I will disengage. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you're going to make up bullshit about what you actually said is not a personal attack because you can read my mind and therefore know when I'm "making up bullshit". That's fairly typical ABF doublethink for this page. Don't bother disengaging, I'll do it for you. ―Mandruss☎ 08:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I apologise, I intended to say "if you're going" but in my anger I said "when". I intended to acknowledge the possibility maybe this was't what you intended, but it was how it was coming across to me and if you were going to do that, I would not be engaging further. I had no desire to do so, since you seemed to have falsely accused me of "disagreeing with a position you hadn't taken" something I considered extremely offensive. Especially since it seemed clear as I explained in some detail in my modified response, that I was explicitly and intentionally disagreeing with what you had actually said namely your claim that "there is no policy, guideline or essay which prevents sustained misattribution of views". As I pointed out with an intentionally offensive example in my second response, this makes absolutely no sense in my eyes from even a basic consideration of NPA and how it's normally interpreted and applied, or for that matter, how it should be interpreted or applied. I do not know why you said what you said about how I'd "disagreed with a position you hadn't taken", whether your forgot what you had said or thought you'd said something you didn't and didn't check before replying or misread or misunderstood what I was disagreeing with or something else. (I myself made this mistaken when I initially applied and assumed I'd said "if" only to later realise I did not so I can understand how easy it happens in the heat of the moment.) If you don't wish to offer an explanation that's up to you. But I was very angry when you accused me of it and so made a mistake when replying because of that, leaving out the key "if" and I apologise for that again. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had a miscommunication. If I'm guilty of a minor brain fart, and I'm not sure I am, then I apologize for it, and it was a brain fart of little consequence. It hardly seems worthy of the ~600 words of discussion so far, and I don't think it will be useful to conduct a thorough post-mortem to determine precisely what happened. Insinuations about "possible" bad faith are a different thing entirely. Apology accepted, no real harm done, but I hope you can learn to let anger subside before responding. Adrenaline is a nasty drug that fucks with the mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked Mutt for clarification which he never provides. In fact if you go over every exchange we've had he has repeatedly accused me of misattributing views to him when I am actually asking him what is views are on a subject, because he so rarely provides any defense of his position, or apparent position.

A pretty perfect example is the quote I provided for him on his own talk page where he basically states people do not change ethnolinguistic groups when their ancestors adopt new native languages because their ancestors before that once spoke different languages, which would again rob any ethnic group on the planet of the ability to be categorized into families. As I said if the people of the British Isles are not Germanic today, they were never Celtic. Something I've asked Mutt to elaborate on or to defend what I perceived to be his stance from his comment, and which he has yet to.

What exactly can I do when an editor repeatedly refuses to answer any questions you ask about his stance and instead interprets those as misattribution of views/personal attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If and editor does not wish to clarify, what you can do is stop bugging them. And stop deciding what they believe. It's ultimately none of your fucking business. The only thing that matters should be how we improve our articles based on reliable secondary sources and our policies and guidelines. The only views of of an editor that really matter are whether the text of an article accurately represents reliable secondary sources according to our policies and guidelines or whether there's a better alternative and anything related to such. (Like whether a source is a RS etc.) And even in these area's, there's rarely a good reason why you have to summarise someone's PoV. Every other editor can read their signed comments and decide for themselves when it matters, like deciding what the consensus is. It's definitely none of your fucking business what someone's views are of Germanic, Celtic, British Isles or any other people or ethnic groups or any other such jazz. Some editors are willing to share their views, within reason. Others are not. Leave the personal shit out of it and concentrate on building an encyclopaedia. If you are here to discuss your personal views, or the views of other editors, please leave. There are a million other forums on the internet where you can discuss your views. Wikipedia is not one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is my business, and all of our businesses, if he's blocking the improvement of the article with more accurate information, is it not? It's not a matter of person opinion or debate, the English people ARE a West Germanic ethnic group. You know you can "feel like" Hungarians are really just West Slavs due to their genetics, but at the end of the day they're not Slavs at all and nobody would class them as such. Your personal opinion is irrelevant until it leads to you blocking an objective opening line about the English people on their article. I'm not sure where your dissonance is coming from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The longer you go without citing a source, the less likely you are to sway anyone. Though if you do come up with sources to refer to, ANI is not the place. If you continue to post opinions and arguments without reference to sources, you will eventually be shown the door. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, sources have been cited frequently both in the English people talk page AND on the articles of every other Germanic ethnic group, which Mutt has ignored and waived because, as he seems to imply, the English have absorbed non-Germanic peoples in the past? Again this can be applied to any ethnic group on the planet, just about. So where are we now? Sources have been provided, sources have been ignored, Mutt refuses to clarify his reasoning for doing so other than with logic that can be applied to any ethnic group. When you try to ascertain why he is being so obstinate regarding this he accuses you of misattributing views to him. Where are we now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid you’re all at risk of being ‘Lunkered’. In other words an attempt is being made to manipulate you for malicious purposes. I have endured repeated accusations, threats, hostile-editing and bullying language from Mutt over several years. Mutt suffers from what I call ‘Wiki-rage’. Being confronted with facts which Mutt dislikes has periodically triggered attempts to shut down and/or intimidate. I’ve never deleted the list of postings on my Wikipage because taken together they amply illustrate a long record of ill-founded (and always personal) attacks. I'd invite you to simply take no notice of him – unless that is anyone would like to propose or initiate some more robust response to Mutt’s years-long history of aggression and dubious tactics.

Mutt especially likes to report that I'm a sock puppet simply because my IP address changes frequently. Well it does. I've no idea why. It just does - but I'm certainly no sock puppet.

Meanwhile I see Mutt now seems to have turned his wrath on another poor Wikipedian who has been corresponding with me. I'd advise both to disengage.

One of the main triggers for Mutt’s attacks and complaints about me is the material contained in the paper attached to my main page – ‘Scots Language: Inconvenient Truths’. If anyone is at all interested in the remarkable contrast between real fully-referenced history and nationalist-romantic 'history' then I’m sure they will find it as fascinating to read as I did to uncover. I must however very much agree with the previous contributor - although I don't mind folk expressing opinions, it's facts that count, not opinion. And it is with well-referenced facts we can all best contribute to Wikipedia - even, perhaps especially, when we may not like those facts. Best wishes Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is pretty ridiculous. I've seen him involved in these spats with at least 3 editors now and God knows how many in the past over this subject. It's extremely tiring, and I'm still waiting for his clarification on why the English are not a West Germanic people as the only reason he has given in the past, as well as for refusing valid sources which are cited in the articles for other Germanic ethnic groups, is one that can again be applied to any ethnolinguistic group on the planet and makes absolutely no sense.

Your personal distaste for the classification of a certain people into a certain ethnolinguistic family is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Block the IP per WP:NOTHERE and then we can all go back to something more productive to do with our time than read this passive-aggressive apologia for why they believe tying English to a specific ethnicity is covered under WP:BLUESKY. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we're not talking about whether all native English-speaking people are the one ethnic bloc, even though there's an argument to be made for that. We're talking about the English people, as in the historical people of England. If you're denying just natively speaking English alone makes you English then the classification of the English people as a West Germanic ethnic group is utterly irrelevant to you, as you're not English and you're not excluded from the English people being classified as a West Germanic ethnic group, which they obviously are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not WP:BLUESKY either as, like I've mentioned several times now, sources HAVE been provided. Sources which are accepted and used on the articles of every other Germanic ethnic group as justification for their classification as a Germanic ethnic group in the opening line.

So why the exception with the English? The only response that's been given can be applied to any ethnolinguistic group on the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, yet again, the ANI is about behaviour, so stop arguing the toss about content. To note, the supposed sourcing was comprehensively blown out of the water, some not providing the support you claim, another packed with risible howlers.

Aside from the behaviour that prompted this thread – the personal attacks continuing above, to put bizarrely specific arguments in my mouth, unrelated to anything I have ever said - this IP’s latest activities indicate their motivation is solely to promote their unsupported POVs.

These include:

This long dormant talk page thread regards the wording of a particular edit and it’s perfectly clear from what the IP adds that they didn't even bother to read the text of the edit under discussion. They’re simply there to coatrack their unrelated point. (FWIW, this is almost all Cassandrathesceptic, or largely their IP socks, ever does.)

Altering cited text and adding new text without the provision of any sources.

This and this forum post.

The topper has to be changing this article to list all British people as ethnically English, with advocacy of extending this to include Irish people. Blue sky?!

Is this to be allowed to continue? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Raise your hand if, after all this chatter and all these useless edits, you still think that the IP is contributing anything here. Simonm223 has it right: NOTHERE applies. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the person behind this IP address an indefinite block as not here to build the encylopedia but rather to argue. Please let me know if the same pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing crops up from other IPs or registered accounts. Those can then be blocked too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acting decisively to block this IP.

A number of participants in this discussion and on my talk page have raised suspicions regarding close similarities to the POVs, editing, misattribution of views by, and IP range of, Cassandrathesceptic (talk · contribs) and their plethora of associated IP socks. It has also been noted that whether the individuals responsible are the same or different, their behaviour is equally unhelpful. Should we also act to close off this 7-year+ similarly hugely time-wasting, NOTHERE campaign? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As also noted, CtS has probably only survived for this long because of the difficulty of acting against what has largely been activity across perpetually novel IPs. The shielding from scrutiny afforded is presumbaly the reason they largely ceased use of their occasional named user account and reverted to IP-hopping after a previous ANI (not their first, they were range blocked several times in 2012) and associated Mfd. Action against the user account, however, would bolster any action against what are generally transparently characteristic IP-edits of this campaign. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I appreciate the IP block. I am hoping you find the time (I know, busy days these days! Congrats!) to do one more loving thing and consider Mutt Lunker's suggestion above. Personally, I am convinced that Cassandra is a giant waste of time, which is disruptive enough already, but the continued logged-out editing is just the icing on the cake. Someone who shows so little interest in abiding by the simplest of rules has placed themselves out of the community. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using a talk page to attack an editor

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please note this thread. I have no objection to the use of the quote I made on that page. A clubby chat, which tries to partially out me while inferring that I am an anti-Semite, and symptomatic of Wikipedia's failure to deal with that, amounts to an extended personal attack. NMMGG had a long history of arguing I am an anti-Semite and has been sanctioned for it. Nishidani (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Please don't forget to notify NMMNG of this thread.-- Deepfriedokra 06:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must be dim: where, exactly, is the personal attack? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I read the thread numerous times, wondering if the wrong link had been posted. Obviously the two participants knew who they were talking about, but I don't see any way that anybody else reading that thread could figure out that Nishidani was being referred to. If there's absolutely no mention of who the discussion is about, can there be a violation of WP:NPA? and if no one is identified, and insufficient hints have been dropped, how can there be outing? I've certainly have seen Nishidani's name many times before, but there was nothing on that thread which said to me "This is about Nishidani", and nothing there that I could identify as a "partial outing".

I think that Nishidani is going to have to explain this in more detail, but if you have to explain a personal attack and a "partial outing" in detail in order to have outsiders recognize them for what you say they are, how valid can those descriptions actually be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the verb would be "implying". Need clarification on the outing thing as well.-- Deepfriedokra 06:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right: "I imply, you infer." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to write articles, not to pursue a grievance - consistently lost in arbitration- over several years to then retire in protest, and only come back when there is an opportunity to niggle at one's perceived (anti-Semitic) adversary. This is a matter of memory and context.NMMGG's innuendoes re my 'antisemitism' are legion, so I'll resist the temptation to list them per WP:TLDR.Bref

• 2013
• Advice Requested 2015

NMMGG has retired in protest from wikipedia and doesn’t edit it. He comes back every several months to harp on his theme, that wikipedia protects antisemites,(once mounting an attack page on me apropos that thesis) and I am, in this regard, a major problem. He now jumps at the quote SJ uses to divagate on his hobby horse.

• (a) "Jews must pass my test if they want my sympathy" quote.

This is an extremely malicious mischaracterization of the quote on Sir Joseph’s page. (note that quote should be linked. Ripping it out of the explanatory context in which it is embedded blinds the reader to its real or intended meaning. Sir Joseph should be asked to link that statement).

• (b) 'It seems like both the style and favorite topic of the guy who once said that Purim is a celebration of genocide.'

NMMGG made a case against me re Purim in 2013, and it apparently still rankles that, with the evidence there showing ‘my’ remark reflected mainstream scholarship, he lost it and got a sanction.

Where did I state I came from Australia?Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the quote is not attributed, how is someone to know that it is yours? And how is "mischaracterizing" a quote a personal attack on you, as opposed to... a mischaracterization of a quote? And per Purim: do you somehow think that everyone on Wikipedia is keeping track of your disputes, and that the mention of "Purim as genocide" is going to automatically be recognized as a reference to you? And again, how is a mischaracterization of something that you said -- if it is a mischaracterization -- a personal attack? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just so totally out of the loop that I can't see the violations you suggest, and an admin intimately familiar with every minute aspect of your editing and dispute history will feel differently, but I'm just not seeing any substance here. 07:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the premise is dicey: I Nishidani will immediately recognize that this is a personal slight against me, but it is not a personal attack in wiki terms because no one else will catch the allusions? Not that all this irks me. I regard it as the standard inability to read carefully what is written, and what it means. That annoys me.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: could you please clarify who you are referring to when you write "the standard inability to read carefully what is written, and what it means"? And if "all this" doesn't "irk" you, why then did you file an AN/I report about it? That doesn't seem to track. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to read carefully and paraphrase neutrally what sources state is an integral part of our encyclopedic endeavor.This is a classic example of failure by contributing editors to do this, albeit on a talk page. To abandon wikipedia only return to make snippy comments offloading ancient grudges is pointless shitstirring.

I write (a) this, arguing that coherence in terms of a universal principle of human dignity must be the basic principle governing sensitivity to prejudice.

This is excerpted, shorn of its logical principle, to produce a quote specifying one instance of violating a universal principle.

(b ) Anyone who complains of anti-Semitism, while silently ignoring the massive daily evidence of the humiliations, harassment and violence dealt out on a systematic basis in Gaza and the West Bank, is ranting hollowly to my ear.

(c) That in turn is construed as my insinuating that

"Jews must pass my test if they want my sympathy"

This is typical of what the press, (notably in the Corbyn case) does in spinning an otherwise sensible concept, to make out its author bears some ethnic enmity. Editors here should not be playing POV games. I find the last comment ‘disturbing’. A statement on the principle of human rights is spun as an attack on 'Jews'.

In stating:

As long as some admins protect these people (perhaps mistakenly thinking they're supporting anti-Zionists, but at this point I doubt it), nothing will change. There needs to be some media attention and then outside pressure for anything to change here. </blockquote

NMMGG is airing the idea that wikipedia’s handling of anti-semitism, and its putative ‘protection’ of people like me, will only change if ‘outside pressure’ from the media noting the issue makes a fuss of it, to force a change. That is what Framgate is all about, and I read it in that context. People who leave wiki, with a grudge, don't edit, come back only to vent their rancor, and augur that media pressure force WP to intervene to fix the ostensible cause of their grievance, should be warned to do what they were warned earlier to do, lay off from this opportunistic niggling to create yet one more 'scandal'.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet this putative scandal-mongering, deeply encoded, would have simply sat on a user's talk page, one with 136 watchers, unseen by the vast majority of Wikipedians, or seen and not understood, if you hadn't brought it to one of the highest profile pages on Wikipedia, with 7,703 watchers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Streisand effect? Most AE cases against me, in retrospect, are examples of this genre. Two or three times a year, having parsed minutely every remark I've made to ferret out a harsh word ('nonsense','silly' 'crap', 'oh, for fuck's sake' mostly in the face of stonewalling reverters) a complaint has been made my behavior conduces to a 'toxic' atmosphere as Shrike puts it, that I am a congenital denigrator. All this simply because I am writing up the Palestinian side of the Israeli occupation. It's not that those who make these complaints do any significant page construction: they revert, add tidbits, tweak for, mainly a national POV. These things, endless cross-page rumour-mongering unfortunately go into the record, and, if you don't react (as mostly I do not, to insults like the characterizations of me on this thread) gradually admins retain a passing sense of 'there's no smoke without fire', and will, at some point, throw the book at me. If you reread the thread I cite, it is a fishing expedition, obviously, using the technique of heckling with smears within eyeshot of the target, hoping to get them to respond there'. It is a standard technique for people who have no evidence, but entertain a private deep suspicion there's something fishy, hidden, off-the-known record in another person's otherwise rational attitudes, and to prove one's suspicion is spot on, one prods, stirs, probes, elicits, niggles, snipes in the ensuing exchange, in order to get the targeted person to blow his/her cool, and say something recklessly. Then 'gotcha!' and sdtraight to AE/ANI. I've watched it for over a decade. Merton called this a self-fulfilling prophetic mode, and I think it within my rights to ask admins to to tell non-performing wiki kibitizers to desist from playing these petty but clearly disruptive baiting games.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please indicate which of the edits you reference refer to something occurring over the last year? I saw a couple going back to 2015, but what is happening now?-- Deepfriedokra 08:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG essentially has not edited over the last year.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Beyond My Ken: The talk page discussion refers to a quotation at the top of the talk page, of which the original can be found in seconds using the search facility. So it is not correct to say that nobody would know who it was about. Most regulars would correctly guess even before checking, as I did. Most regulars would also read it as a personal attack that was intended to be an implication of anti-semitism. I was thinking of bringing up this incident myself, not least because the talk page owner recently narrowly escaped a block over a similar personal attack. In that case the attacked user was named, but frankly I can't see the distinction between attacking a named person and attacking a person whose identity is trivial to determine (which, irrelevantly, is how libel laws in most countries operate too). Zero^talk 12:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but "You are an idiot" is a personal attack, "What you said is idiotic" isn't. "You are an anti-semite" is a personal attack, "Your views are anti-semitic" is not, and even less so when one has to go searching (no matter how "trivial") to find out who "you" is.

I think you overestimate how many people among the "regulars" keep track of any ongoing disputes between the editors involved, unless by "regulars" you don't mean "regular editors of Wikipedia" but "regular participants in Israel-Palestine editing." In determining what is and isn't a personal attack, one should, I think, use a "reasonable person" standard, but you seem to be defining a "person" as someone who holds specialized knowledge, not simply a "reasonable editor of Wikipedia", but a "reasonable editor of the Israel-Palestine subject area" (if there is such a thing). Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani is saying "This is fundamental to civilization, as Hillel the Elder understood in his statement at Shabbath folio:31a, 'What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation.'" This doesn't have anything to do with the topic of conversation. In this instance Nishidani is not addressing the topic of Zionism. Invoking the religious precept spoken by "Hillel the Elder" implicates the religion. This is apart from politics, the ostensible topic of the discussion. Nishidani wanders across an imaginary line separating religion and politics when they say "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow". That is Torah as opposed to Zionism. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Beyond My Ken: Since an anti-semite is exactly someone who holds anti-semitic views (look in a dictionary), your claim that "your views are anti-semitic" is not a personal attack has no logical leg to stand on. The vast majority of "reasonable people" would take it as a personal insult and they would be right. What are you doing defending the indefensible? Zero^talk 18:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A person cannot change their being, they are always themselves, no matter what, but they can change their views, and many people do. I am not "defending the indefensible" (which by your standard would be a personal attack) I am pointing out that a person's views are not the person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This has too long roots for me, and looking for past diffs is very exhausting at this time of night. I'm however pinging @El C: who has dealt with Sir Joseph's talkpage quotes and discussion of them before. I'm also going to alert Sir Joseph, who is surely involved in the dialogue he takes part in on his page. Bishonen talk 19:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Though not as egregious as the quote I removed, I find Sir Joseph's use of quotations, meant to depict his editorial opponents in a bad light, to be generally inappropriate and too adversarial. Especially, seeing that this is an editor who has been sanctioned for ARBPIA violations multiple times. If anything, they should aim to come across as more understated on this highly contentious front. El_C 19:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's an admirable position to take, @El C:. Are you going to enforce the same standard on the OP's own user page, where he features a similarly context-less quote (nocal100's) meant to depict his editorial opponents in a bad light? You are of course aware that the OP is also an editor who has been sanctioned for ARBPIA violations multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk • contribs)

• What is wrong with that quote? I am not putting any words into Nishidani's mouth. He is saying that I am responsible for Israel and that I can't complain about antisemitism in my neighborhood until I do something about Israel. That seems to be the gist of his quote. Is there anything wrong with highlighting that viewpoint? I also have no control over what NMMNG says on my page, so I'm not sure what else to do here. I do find it interesting though that Nishidani is bringing an action considering that he has been warned repeatedly by admins about his conduct. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I would just like to add, that yes, I wouldn't be walking around proud calling Purim a genocide as you do. Purim celebrates self-defense. I am not sure how a holiday where people were saved from destruction translates into genocide gets into your books, but that goes into your known biases. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Invoking Purim is once again invoking religion, also known as Judaism. A discussion of Zionism is unlikely to involve events of millennia ago. Invoking Purim or Hillel the Elder in an argument about Zionism is off-topic and it crosses an invisible line between religion and politics. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?Zionism is the secular reenactment of a biblical story, and, the consensus of scholarship states, since 1967 religious Zionism, integral to that project from the outset, has gained a rising ascendencyNishidani (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Such no-context excerpts as part of inter-editorial disputes which pertain to ARBPIA, contribute to a toxic environment in this very contentious area. That is the problem. El_C 19:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nishidani himself posted the link [188] to his full quote, where he himself said the same thing, if you don't care about what is going on in Israel then it rings hollow. As you know from my talk page's big US flag, I live in the US and unless you think I have dual allegiance, I have no say on what goes on in Israel. So the quote on my page is in context, similar to other quotes on all the other pages on talk pages throughout Wikipedia. My quote says exactly what he means, that I can't complain about antisemitism in my community. (Have you looked at his talk page?) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In any event, I'm not sure what @Nishidani: is asking for here against NMMNG. Can he clarify? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I care about what is going on in Israel — I also care about what is going on on Wikipedia, which is what this is about. Yes, I've seen their talk page. I'm not sure to what extent there is something inappropriate there due to the TLDR-nature of that piece. At a glance, it does not seem to invoke inter-editorial disputes specifically, unless I'm missing something. Again, if there are issues that pertain to racism, antisemitism or Holocaust denial, you are free to bring those up to review here. I think you will find that we take those concerns very seriously. El_C 19:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides his TLDR on top, if you continue his antisemitism thread, he says that Jews worldwide are responsible for Israel's actions, and that if a Jew in London is spat upon by someone in London we need to recognize that an Arab is spat upon by a Jew in Israel. And he goes further. I do recall some Representative in the US getting in trouble for saying something similar to that. I don't live in Israel and have no control over what Israel does, so that quote on my talk page is on context of his thinking and a pretty bad thinking. He seems to confuse ethnicity, religion and nation a bit in his screed. If a Jew is spat on in London by some anti-Semite, they do well to seek redress and punitive costs; but if that person, on hearing that Christian priests are customarily spat on in Jerusalem by Haredi passers-by, can't make the connection between what befell them, and what befalls non-Jews, then the outrage is not grounded in a universal moral sensibility: it is personal, and, often, ethnic. You seem to throw around toxicity a bit, but I'm not the right target for that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

he says that Jews worldwide are responsible for Israel's actions

I only noticed this now, since hitherto I was looking for neutral input. I nowhere state such an absurdity (there is, not withstanding the ranting nonsense asserting Zionism and Jewishness are interchangeable, no intrinsic connection between being Jewish and Israel). Strike it please. Most of this guttersniping comes from an unfamiliarity with the normal processes of logical thinking.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless, @El C: this is off topic, since Nishidani did not open this thread to discuss the quote, as he stated in the opening sentence he is fine with the sentence being on my talk page. So the only one here making a deal out of it is you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe so, but this incident would not exist had it not been for its aforementioned display — ARBPIA trouble that we could have done without. El_C 23:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• More importantly since we're way off-topic here, Nishidani continues to refer to the whole Labour antisemitism issue as a smear campaign, when I don't think even Corbyn himself will do that. Corbyn has admitted that there are issues and he said that Labour is taking steps to deal with antisemitism in the Labour party, but Nishidani says it's all a smear. The UK Labour Party has a problem with a massive persistent press campaign asserting, contrafactually, that, compared to all other political parties, it uniquely has an 'antisemitic' problem. this challenges widestream RS, including Guardian, NYtimes, BBC, CNN, etc. Further, Nishidani continues to say "impeccable scholarly works, such as Mearsheimer and Walt's 2007 book" when that book has been widely condemned as antisemitic by many scholars. To claim that it is impeccable is ludicrous. I know that Nishidani usually gets a wide berth because he usually writes a huge wall of text, but he edits with a huge bias and it does need to stop. It's one thing to be biased on a talk page, but not on the mainspace, (especially when you say you're retired half a dozen times). Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nishidani has a habit of putting down his fellow editors, making denigrating comments about them, doubting their logical faculties, general competence and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, using strong language (to say the least). This has been pointed out to him many times, and objected to. Nishidani continues this behavior unchanged. It is time the community put a stop to this behavior, and this lame attempt to silence his opponents should backfire on him. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • ...and No More Mr Nice Guy has a long, looooooong history of trying to paint Nishidani as an anti−Semite, (ie. a racist). Debresser: I hope you remember Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Debresser: you called me and Nishidani for "anti-Jewish" (and in my part of the world that is the same as being a racist), I asked you to withdraw it and apologise, or show how I was anti-Jewish. You did neither, and you know how that ended.
  • I think this report should have been filed at AE, too. I thought of doing that myself, but to do that the editor in question has to be alerted in the last year (?) (AFAIK!...it is rather difficult to keep up with the rules). Anyway, I have now alerted NMMNG.
  • What I think is, well, nasty, about this last spat, is that NMMNG basically said he has retired (he has less than 50 edits this last year), well ok. But then he return solely to spread these poisonous allegation about an editor. (And I would guess 100% of the editors in the I/P area who sees this knows exactly who they were talking about: this has been going on for years.) (Not that I'm impressed with Sir Joseph's behaviour, either). So is this what we have to look forward to: retired editors returning once or twice a year in order to spread some shit around the IP area? How fun that will be</sarcasm> Huldra (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huldra, Where would we be if people who retire never come back to edit?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) .
      • User:Sir Joseph, of course retired editors "in good standing" are welcome back....but the same rules/question should apply to them, as to any other editor; namely: Are they here to write an encyclopaedia? ..or are they here for the disruption? What is the "signal/noice" ratio? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I totally agree with User:Debresser assessment Nishidani has a long history of attacking other editors he could be nicest person if you agree with his POV but if you oppose it he will create a toxic atmosphere that hinders a collegial editing. --Shrike (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instant reverts with no comprehensible talk page comment or edit summary is 'collegial'? Yawn. As to SJ's query. :::Nothing punitive. If SJ likes the quote as ddamning proof of something evil, he should be required to link it on his page so that readers know exactly the context in which it (utterly non controversial though it be) was said. As to NMMGG he should be warned that Wikipedia is a worksite, not an opportunity to voice personal grievances or come back only to divagate on his opinions about another editor.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Shrike said it best. This is quickly becoming a WP:Boomerang and, IMHO, probably should result in some actions toward Nishidani. Buffs (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, as per his custom, simply repeated what Debresser wrote, so give credit where credit is due. The stock claim that I have a long history of making personal attacks on other editors is nonsense. There is a long history of a group of editors repeatedly complaining at AE/ANI I personalize disputes, their way of phrasing the fact that I have a long history of demanding that editors explain their repetitive reverting in rational terms, on policy grounds, asking them to read the sources they excise, and, above all, asking them to read up on the topics they edit. That pattern is, for them, tantamount to a personal attack, and proof of antisemitism.Nishidani (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, since I agree with his assessment above, my opinion is "tantamount to a personal attack, and proof of antisemitism"? That's an absurd conclusion. If that's your contention, then, at this point, I see nothing left to say by to call for you to be blocked. If you feel everyone is attacking you, "everyone" isn't the problem in the equation. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misread. Nishidani's editing pattern (demanding rational explanations on policy grounds, asking to read sources before removing them, asking to read more) is, to them (a group of editors), tantamount to a personal attack, and proof of antisemitism. ---Sluzzelintalk 21:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a terrible thing to say and shows how ignorant you are of his editing style. You can always visit AE and see how many times he was warned for his civility, to call people out on bad faith attacks is disgusting. Perhaps read up on his "editing pattern" as you call it. Or, don't insert yourself into disputes you know nothing about that spans more than one week of edits.Sir Joseph^(talk) 21:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are addressing me, Sir Joseph, I was trying to paraphrase/explain what Nishidani had written and was subsequently misunderstood (in my opinion) by Buffs. I wasn't trying to "say" anything. You are, of course, welcome to assess my ignorance as you see fit, but in my own view I am unduly familiar with Nishidani's editing style as I am with yours. ---Sluzzelintalk 21:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs, The thread is a great example of his failure to WP:AGF that even here he continues his pattern of accusing other editors of having "national pov" and he was banned in the past exactly for the same problems(incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith) nothing have changed as years have passed --Shrike (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pleass reread the thread, Shrike. I described a situation, until editors like yourself and Debresser personalized this with non-AGF comments about their perceived Nishidani problem, with the usual template profile of putative traits. It is a personal attack to repeatedly intervene, every time I am mentioned, with the standard boilerplate about this 'Nishidani,' whose ostensible 'violent denigration, contempt, refusal of AGF,' apparently flaring 24/7 over 13 years and through 74,000 edits has led to a handful of sanctions, and several reversals of blocks imposed through misreading by admins.

I could cite the same phrasing from half a dozen cases or threads where I have been reported, or challenged and the report has been thrown out. It is always the same tripe, based on a few sanctions over 13 years. It is part of a reflex smear Nishidani habit some of you have adopted. Now, could someone close this with the correct warning. I.e. Wikipedia is not a venue for inactive editors to drop back in to pursue some fixation they have with active editors, and if one wants to showcase a quotation which might lead rise to misunderstandings, link the quotation with a diff, so that readers may understand the context in which it was said. I did this with the NoCal sockmaster quote on my page (alluded to by the sock posting above). I expect the same treatment here.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to pull anything useful out of that wall of text, Nishidani. I'm not smearing anyone. I'm evaluating based on the evidence presented. AGF does not appear to be present in your remarks and I find Shrike's assessment and others compelling. Buffs (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated personal attacks by Jgriffy98

Jgriffy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [189]. The user is a recidivist, others told him/her that he/she will likely got indeffed, see e.g. [190]. Editor was warned, but did not repent, see [191]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jgriffy98 has a very serious civility problem. [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] Zero^talk 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to commit to being more civil with my fellow editors. I do not wish to communicate with or be contacted by Tgeorgescu. He has harassed me several times already and is actively trying to get my account banned. I would like for him to leave me alone and stop his harassment. He carefully monitors my behavior so he can report me every chance he can get. Tgeorgescu and I do not have a good standing with each other, and it's time for him to leave me alone. Again, I am willing to commit to being more civil and communicating better with my fellow editors, but I need Tgeorgescu to cease his harassment. He never contributes anything meaningful to my conversations with other editors, and I feel like he's deliberately trying to get under my skin to provoke a reaction from me. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And surely you could provide evidence of such harassment... otherwise you just made it worse for yourself. Do note that you were not only uncivil towards me, but also towards other editors, lambasting us all (including Wikipedia policies and guidelines) of being bent to further misinformation, see e.g. [199]. As I wrote at User:Tgeorgescu#A word for newbies which I seem to be in conflict with, I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you. And it seems that you're doing a pretty good job at it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to point out that Jgriffy did not assume good faith and essentially accused A Parrot of lying about having read a source after it contradicted what Jgriffy wanted it to say [200].--Ermenrich (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Harassment

I have been harrassed several times by an editor named Tgeorgescu, and I would like for him/her to leave me alone. I have warned him several times not to communicate with me, as the two of us have a bad standing with each other. We have both used personal attacks against each other in the past, so I have been trying to avoid any interaction with him. Tgeorgescu seems to just randomly appear during a conversation I'm having with another editor, even though I have warned him not to message me. When he does interfere with a conversation I'm having with another editor, he never contributes anything to the conversation, and instead makes passive aggressive and smartass remarks. I feel like he's doing this just to get under my skin. Again, I do not want to interact with Tgeorgescu, yet he continually shows up out of nowhere to criticize me. I was considering reporting him before, but decided it wasn't worth my time. Seeing as how he just reported me for "attacking" him, I have changed my mind. How can I get Tgeorgescu to leave me alone? Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

He has continuously monitored my behavior everytime I make an edit or engage with a discussion with another editor, and reports me for violation every chance he can get. I feel like he's deliberately trying to get under my skin in order to provoke a reaction, and he's actively trying to get my account banned. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgriffy98 (talk • contribs)

Please link to diffs of examples of this harassment. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You are involved in editing disputes on exactly one article, The Exodus, which Tgeorgescu has been editing for longer than your account has been registered. You can ask him to avoid your talk page, but you don't get to banish him the article or related discussions. And the conversation here, honestly I'm surprised you weren't blocked right then and there. I am considering it. If you can't promise to engage with other editors in a collegial fashion, this is not the website for you. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't want this to be taken as defense of Jgriffy, I read Tgeorgescu's user page to see what prompted such vitriol from him... and what I found was equally vitriolic, albeit lacking profanity. If your basic complaint about my edits is "your professor ran over my dogma", you are completely pitiful and pathetic. We are unapologetically in favor of the academic consensus, so you don't belong here. As Neil Asher Silberman stated, "what we're doing is just continuing a struggle a scholarly struggle that's been going on for a hundred years the boundary just now happens to be in the story of the Israelites and the Israelite Kingdom and it's moving forward slowly to separate religious literature and spirituality from what we call history. The scientific method and the historical method do not hate religion. There is no hate of ants required in order to crush ants nests with a bulldozer. Seems like a rather blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC. Seth Kellerman (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how many users seem to think that civility is a contingent or bilateral responsibility: Once you perceive that someone has crossed a line with you, the brakes come off and you can be as rude as you like to them. That's not how it works here. I asked this user to remove or strike their personal attacks, and they blew it off. I see no commitment to civility here, or inclination to improve. Bovlb (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jgriffy98 just threw nothing but tantrums after multiple editors rejected his arguments. The user can't maintain civility for very long, obviously. Jgriffy98 is basically WP:NOTHERE, and even preferred to be blocked as he states. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb: I asked him/her to present evidence of the harassment. I could equally claim that I was harassed by Barrack Obama, but since I have no evidence for it, why should you believe me? Presenting evidence of harassment shouldn't be too complicated, seen https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=tgeorgescu&users=jgriffy98&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of "You seem like a loudmouth bitch, and I really don't want your help. Just go fuck yourself.", "It seems like the only thing you people care about is my attitude and cursing. It's not my fault you're a sensitive woose." and "Stop trying to start shit, you know-it-all punk.", all in the last ten minutes, I've given Jgriffy98 a brief break from Wikipedia. Any more of this and the next one is indefinite. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

31 hours? Really? I'm surprised and very disappointed, I've seen newly registered users get blocked indefinitely for a lot less behavioral issues. And what's even more surprising, that it took this long to block an obvious WP:NOTHERE case. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, we don't just indef people at the drop of a hat. If Jgriffy98 starts up again causing problems, then they'll be promptly be reblocked, and if they express a willingness to work within our rules then they're welcome to carry on. I'm not going to immediately indef an editor who's been active for almost a year and virtually all of whose mainspace edits appear to have been an attempt to edit constructively, even if they weren't all policy-compliant, without giving them a chance to prove themselves. (FWIW, a 31 hour block without the usual four warnings is considerably harsher than what someone in this situation would normally receive.) ‑ Iridescent 20:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance IP

Threats on Article

Chronic disruptive editing

Personal attacks and cross-wiki abuse

IP-hopping phone vandal.

There's been someone going on a bunch of cell phone-related articles making really strange changes. It's been going on for a couple days now, so I've lost track of every IP that is involved, but here are some.

• 107.77.201.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.197.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 107.77.197.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:813:0:0:0:29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:803:0:0:0:66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:BD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:C2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:4E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - this one actually appeared constructive, but is in the same range. Quite a coincidence, if you ask me.

Maybe a rangeblock is needed? That's a pretty big range though. - Frood (talk!) 05:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T Mobile. I found some other vandalism from 2600:387:1:800::/59 as well, which has been blocked before, so I have range blocked for 1 month. The IPv4 ranges have a slightly better signal to noise ratio, but not by much. As for IPv4, the closest single range that gets all the IPs you reported is 107.77.192.0/20. In that range, I also found 107.77.196.102 and 107.77.198.173, so I'm going to block the whole /20 for a week or so, hopefully that will be enough as there is some non-vandalism from that range. ST47 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre accusations by User:Nocturnalnow

User:Nocturnalnow is a frequent contributor to Talk:Jimbo Wales. For unknown reasons, they have decided that I am responsible for User:Wnt's lack of recent contributions. In an unrelated discussion on Jimbo's talk page they said Wnt is no longer editing and I blame Bitter Oil and other similar mean-spirited and scornful attacks by many others more later toward him for making it reaaaly difficult for editors like me, and maybe WNT to bring out anything outside of the box.. I gave them a chance to withdraw the accusation, but they have decided to double down instead: you scorned and bullied Wnt and done the same with me, including particularly personal and nasty attack you put here on Jimbo's page a few days ago. As far as I can tell, the only interactions I had with Wnt were here and here. Wnt's absence from Wikipedia is probably related to his recent block and has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I am sympathetic to Nocturnalnow's condition but perhaps it is time for them to find a different hobby. Bitter Oil (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your goodbye message to Wnt is relevant. Odd that you neglected to mention it- you have less than 500 total edits so it wasn't hard to find. --Noren (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you should probably stay of the internet all together. And smash your mobile phone while you're at it. We'll all be better off. This is totally inappropriate. I think I see a WP:BOOMERANG in flight. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 20:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read that sarcastic comment in the context of what I was answering. Regardless, it didn't stop Wnt editing. Both Wnt and Nocturnalnow are conspiracy nuts who regularly spout nonsense on Jimbo's talk page. I will not apologize for treating their paranoid fantasies with disdain. I have no idea why they have been tolerated for so long. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I'll give you a little context. I was replying to what Wnt said ... and just like that Firefox made NoScript stop working by surprise this morning. Note that, surprisingly enough, even the Tor Browser has immediately disabled it (despite relying on it to protect against script attacks) so presumably some folks going to their favorite sites today are going to get a very nasty surprise. For the past couple of months I've noticed that my setting to "delete all cookies" doesn't stop at least one site (The Intercept) from remembering cookie data unless I do it manually with at least one cookie displayed on the menu. I think Mozilla is getting infiltrated by hostile interests -- just like Wikipedia is, and Ecuador for that matter -- and that Brendan Eich was attacked for more than being spotted supporting the wrong side in a ballot referendum. Yet if I can't trust them, who can I trust -- the Microsoft or Google empire? The mysterious Chinese owners of Opera who have terms and conditions to access user data? On the paywalls I suppose we can still try to come up with a way to use the "developer interface" to view individual components for now, until that gets people thrown in jail for hacking. There are lots of places for people to discuss conspiracy theories. A highly visible page on Wikipedia should not be encouraging that. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess the real question is, did Bitter Oil ever get into conflicts with Wnt and/or Nocturnalnow with their previous account? If so, then this is an abuse of a clean start. If not, then I'm not sure I care if BO loses patience with Wnt or NN; it's *really hard* to avoid losing patience with them, they say lots and lots of consistently loony things. Luckily most of that is confined to Jimbo's talk page, where nothing of consequence ever happens anyway. I'm guessing BO does not actually care whether NN thinks he drove Wnt off (wouldn't BO think of that as a good thing?), and this is just an attempt to shut NN up because BO finds them highly annoying. And linking to NN's 2.5 year old, now-removed note is kind of a dick move. I vote for Option 1: a pox on both their houses. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• What action are you actually seeking here at ANI, Bitter Oil? Or is venting your frustration good enough? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little confused by the requested action here. Nocturnalnow's behavior is pretty weird, I admit, but it seems like Jimbo Wales's talk page is a trash can for weird comments and borderline behavior that wouldn't be tolerated in an actual project space. I don't understand why this is the case, but I'm sure there's a good reason for it. But if you set that aside, then it seems like the proper remedy is to admonish these two (three?) users to avoid talking to each other and to move on. Again, maybe I am missing something subtle that explains what the original requester is asking for. Michepman (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Liz: I guess I was just looking for an admin to give Nocturnalnow a stern talking to about throwing around accusations, but I had forgotten about my own comment to Wnt. Even though it is ridiculous, perhaps Nocturnalnow really does think that Wnt has stopped editing because of my comment weeks earlier and not because he was blocked for his behavior. At this point, I'm fine if someone wants to close this. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably what is desired is a remedy for the casting of aspersions, such as a warning from an administrator and a sanction not to repeat similar. On the broader point, Nocturnalnow is unambiguously not here to improve Wikipedia, they just like to hang out on Jimbo's talkpage and spout conspiracist nonsense. No harm would result to the encyclopedia from blocking them. --JBL (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of this, I was thinking of proposing an indef block myself. The current section at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Naming perpetrators is just the latest bizarre thread there trying to prove... I honestly don't know what. Jimbo's talkpage is indeed part of Wikipedia, and his flooding that page with conversations no discernible purpose is extremely disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights, what I was trying to bring to light there is that over the years there has been an increasing level of different types of censorship relating to news items and also selective censorship, whereby large chuncks of society, perhaps in media or law enforcement or politics, who are given access to info that the citizenry at large are not. Just by delaying the naming of the perps means that many hard working stiffs who might watch only the "breaking" type news will miss out entirely on that info, and I think that interferes with a nation having an "alert and knowledgeable citizenry" which is what Eisenhower said is necessary for a democracy to function as it should.

Most concerning, we have never before even seen an attempt to block the name of a perpetrator in Wikipedia which we did see this most recent time, which brings my concerns into the are a of we might have a trend developing. There is already more classified info in the USA than unclassified and I worry about any trend which removes information from the masses and gleefully reserves it for certain segments, like news junkies, politicians, media personnel etc. So,The Blade of the Northern Lights, I apologise if I was not more clear in what my purpose was. As far as JBL, we've had some very recent and kind of personal altercations. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are curious, "altercations" in this case means that I have repeatedly pointed out that Nocturnalnow is a crank on Jimbotalk, not just on ANI: [211][212][213][214][215][216]. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it not have been fair to include a couple of my responses? Like this or this? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction:JBL, you overlooked this,this, and this.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have little patience for editors who spend all of their time on Jimbo's talk page. They seem like they are trying to impress him for some unknown reason or get his attention. Some never edit articles or contribute any time to improving the project. That page should have an edit notice with WP:NOTFORUM in a bright red font. But I don't think I've seen any editor ever disciplined for their conduct there. Most admins have a hands-off attitude to that space and let Jimbo set the boundaries of acceptable behavior there...which he rarely does. Liz^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction:Talk!, you overlooked this,this, and this.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnalnow, may I ask you to source these claims? You seem quite interested in some principles of Wikipedia, but throughly uninterested in our commitment to verifiability. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing the situation, which brought me here via eir talk page, it seems quite clear to me that Nocturnalnow is WP:NOTHERE. I think that, at the very least, a reminder would be in order. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• StudiesWorld, THIS (In answer to your question 3 sentences above), is the most important "claim" that I have ever made, i.e."There is already more classified info in the USA than unclassified" (repeated directly above). However, given the source of the info, and its publishing by Stanford, I would not call it a "claim, simply statistical reality. This "claim" is exactly what people out to get me call "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy nut". Using the "conspiracy" word as a shiny object to distract from critical thinking about anything, for some bizarre reason, they do not want people thinking about or discussing.

This leaves us with a real, exciting conclusion. That Peter Galison must ALSO be a conspiracy nut. And if so, then all of the "conspiracy theory" warriors should be raising hell with Stanford and Harvard for giving this "conspiracy nut" a platform for his crazy conspiracy theories.

And then, go after Daniel Ellsberg for publishing the Pentagon Papers which had info long labeled "conspiracy theory" before being published by the reliable sources of the day.

Anybody who backs away intellectually whenever they hear the term "conspiracy theory", I have 1 other term for you to think about...personally.. "brainwashed" by whatever the current propaganda is, like "Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction".

And in that regard, whoever really gives a damn about anything other than peer group acceptance, MUST avoid this little speech by another "conspiracy theorist", Wesley Clark (MUST be one to be saying the Iraq war had NOTHING to do with WMDs, fill stop) recounting events that occurred only TWO WEEKS AFTER 9/11)Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is the first interaction between Bitter oil and me, within 1 week of his appearance on Wikipedia just 4 months ago.

It says, in reference to himself "I am new here". Someone smarter than me said "You can tell a tree by its fruit". If you believe he was new here in April 2019, then I suggest you follow the path he set for you here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1,084 edits to Jimbo's talk page is absolutely ridiculous. That's more than I have made to WT:RfA over the last 10 years! In fact out of a total 2,530 edits only 570 are to mainspace, the rest being to talk pages. Suggest Topic ban from Jimbo's page so they get on with editing mainspace more constructively or an Indef block for NOTHERE per The Blade of the Northern Lights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, you overlooked this,this, and this.Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to count my previous edits under Mr. Grant Evans and Mr. Grant Evans 2, links at my User page. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... the last of which were in 2011. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Related: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Nocturnalnow under attack and block threat at ANI for postings here --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solution, I think. I am taking the friendly advice of Smallbones and Liz and will be 100% staying off of Jimbo's talk page going forward. Best wishes to all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly, Nocturnalnow, I wasn't considering "100% staying off" any one page (which amounts to a strict topic ban) which means that some editor might try to bring you here if you fall back into old habits. I was thinking about just limiting your activity there to ~10% of your editing which still amounts to some participation and allows you to also spend most of your time working on the encyclopedia. I think it was the imbalance of editing time that got people's attention. SPAs (single purpose accounts) are a red flag to many people and it is clear that you do have some interests beyond Jimbo's talk page. Of course, other admins might have different opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More disruptive edits from 2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 after block expiry

After two prior reports here concerning disruptive edits from this IP range ([217] (not answered), [218] (ten days later)), the range was blocked for two weeks by EdJohnston. In this first week since their block expired, disruptive edits with exactly the same pattern have persisted in almost exactly the same subject areas. Please review their contributions again and take whatever action is necessary. I will also note that they have not responded to any talk page warnings or altered their habits in any way. ComplexRational (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some recent diffs:

• [219] - this is against consensus, and is an incomplete copy, paste, subtract 1 from unbihexium
• [220] - WP:OR
• [221] - more WP:OR
• [222] - even more WP:OR and unsourced speculation

Consistent with previous edits, these lack meaningful edit summaries, and persist despite warnings about disruptive editing, OR, and numerous reverts by various editors. ComplexRational (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reblocked Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 for another three months based on this report. They resumed editing on 2 September and it appears that most of their edits are reverted by others. I'm not aware of any collateral damage from this block. Occasionally they add text to articles but when they do so it is unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidis, once again

• Yazidis (edit talk history links watch logs)

And it continues. Now, the editor thinks it's okay to go ahead and add unsubstantial templates to the main page as long as they "explained" the reasons in the talk-pagewithout support (from anyone except two very suspicious editors. The interaction in the talk-page is mostly me trying to get them to explain why it is POV to have divergent 'official' statuses of the Yazidis in the intro (Armenia/Iraq v. Georgia/Kurdistan). Now, it looks like the editor is using sock puppets and meat puppets[223] to gather support for arguments which truly don't make sense and go against common sense.

Twice a week or so some new IP or account start editing this specific page and it's always the same behavior. It's becoming difficult to keep good faith with new accounts and it worryingly feels like I've become the guardian for the page. I've been cleaning up messy and persistent edits since 24 March and the page is currently in its second protection period since May which doesn't seem to work. Admins should look for a new way of preventing vandalism on this page as semi-protections don't work.

I've also opened a sockpuppet investigation because I believe this is the same editor who has been creating dozens of accounts since early this year just for their disruptive editing.(check archive)

--Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For my own part, I've been trying to keep the Kurdish set of articles from getting out of hand the last few months, mostly by fiat, but Kurdish GS would probably be helpful, if someone interested in drafting it. At the very least, let's gauge the support such an idea may have. The problem is that I'm just not that familiar with the material; but regardless, edit warring from new SPA accounts continue to be a reoccurring problem. El_C 00:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, the editing is mainly limited to this page and perhaps the Pending method or even Full protection should be considered. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what your problem is. I found the neutrality of the two sentences controversial and also explained it on the talk page. I added two templates and you reverted them 3 times.[224][225][226] Then you wrote on my user talk page that there is a issue with me on the ani board.[227] But I see no problem between us but only the content disput that belongs on the talk page of the article and not here. B9Xyz (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of your arguments make sense. That’s the problem. And I’m going to revert any removal of information by you until you have support from other editors who have spent time on related articles and not suspicious accounts like the two which commented in the talkpage.

Read Wikipedis rules before you edit. It’s obviously not enough to explain your controversial edits int the talkpage and then go ahead with your edits. Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmedo Semsurî: judging from the comments on the talk page, more than one person agrees with B9Xyz. Comments like your edit summary "Revert to stable edition before vandalism. You will be revert again and again until you return to the talk-page and make real arguments and not really on bizarre arguments which go against common sense and relying on suspicious accounts doesn't look good." are against WP:CIVIL. Calling a good faith edit vandalism, even if incorrect, is unnecessarily hostile/personal. The same applies to other edit summaries. Lastly, "reverting to the stable version" can come across as highly dismissive of well-founded concerns (again, even if incorrect). WP:STABLE explains why you shouldn't use this as an argument in the manner which you're going. Buffs (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related issue: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali

There are apparently other potential issues I was unaware of. Requesting an admin to investigate. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Protection up'd to extended-confirmed. I would rather new SPA editors or dormant accounts restrict themselves to the talk page and to edit requests, for now. El_C 11:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, what you'd "rather" have happen is irrelevant. EC protection is supposed to be limited to pages where "semi-protection has proven to be ineffective...to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles..." Only one person is editing that this applies to. If you disagree with them, so be it, but you can't just decide you want people to discuss more and give edit rights to one "side" of a discussion. That isn't what ECP is for. Buffs (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If checkuser comes back positive (see above), then ECP should be removed and reinstated to prevent persistent sockpuppetry, not "pushing discussion to the talk page". I stand by my assessment that this is not a valid rationale, even if ECP is warranted. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we have had too much disruption and socking in these articles, so I stand by my decision, but another admin is free to undo my upping of the protection without needing to consult me in any way. El_C 22:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then why not ECP both the article and the talk page for "persistent sockpuppetry"? Driving sockpuppets (if that's what they are) to the talk page is just another forum for trolling. It doesn't address the root problem, it just pushes it elsewhere. Your logic on your rationale is baffling. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with User:El C that EC protection of Yazidis is a reasonable step. There is a large participation of editors there with a short track record. It is impractical to assess large numbers of accounts for sockpuppetry, but the 500-edit limit helps to tilt the balance against success for would-be sockpuppets.
• The question of whether Yazidis are Kurds might benefit from an WP:RFC.
• It may be worth exploring whether Kurdish general sanctions should be authorized. Recently new sanctions were created at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics which is a clear step forward, given the problems which have occurred in that topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @EdJohnston: My issue is not with the ECP itself being enacted, but the given rationale and lack of application to the talk page. While this rationale is lacking (and the manner in which it's been done doesn't lend itself to actually solving the problem...it's just now on the talk page), other Admins are putting ECP down with no rationale whatsoever. Buffs (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Thanks for the support. Personally, I could make 500 edits tomorrow and continue to work on the page because more than one person agreed with me on the talk page. But it does not work if admins stay out of the discussion and prefer to agree only with extended confirmed users instead of acting neutrally. B9Xyz (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: From WP:ECP "Extended confirmed protection...should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles not covered by Arbitration Committee 30/500 rulings." From the SPI, these seem to be valid IPs/New Users with various points of input. Our rules have to mean something. ECP is not to be applied in this manner. Conflict WILL happen. We need to focus on behavior issues/remedies for individual users rather than shutting down editing for all but the veterans. This is unfair to the noobs and runs against our own procedures. "I want more discussion on the talk page" is NOT a valid rationale for invoking ECP. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:ANIwp: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

*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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose ban - What Doncram says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I respectfully disagree about the need/usefulness/fairness to put a ban into place. This is effectively ONE incident, i.e. they have one-time created a bunch of move requests, about which they are hereby getting feedback that others do not agree those are obviously valid and feedback that creating multiple move requests causes work for other editors and therefore they should only ever make move requests at a very slow pace (slow enough to learn from the process). I disagree with suggestion they should create one move request per day, because that is too fast... there is no opportunity to learn from the 7 or 10 process on the first request, before forming the second request. Again it is costly and mean to impose topic bans, IMHO, and it is not necessary here. Consider this whole ANI proceeding to be ONE instance of giving the editor some feedback. Back off, i say. --Doncram (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Doncram. Buffs (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can an uninvolved admin please review and close this? GiantSnowman 11:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Can an uninvolved admin please review and close this? GiantSnowman 09:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef TBAN from moving pages. I can't close this because I closed it last time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indefinite TBAN from moving pages. Clearly a case where a sanction was too short and it accomplished virtually nothing because of that. We need to nip this in the bud, and the editor needs to do something else with his wiki time. Softlavender (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]