Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

PAs, tendentious editing by advocacy editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• On the overall gist of this, I have to concur with Atsme. The "NoMoPBs" editor, who has now changed username to disguise their WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problem has already been warned by multiple editors (e.g. at WT:DOGS) that a topic ban would be likely if they did not desist pushing a viewpoint, and here we are. There dog breeds topic just periodically attracts WP:GREATWRONGS nonsense, for which a T-ban is the cure if the disruption continues. I don't have an opinion on whether any aspersions/NPA stuff is at stake, not having pored over every word between these editors. Doesn't matter. The topical disruption is sufficient for the ban. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• close this drama thread. Atsme removed clearly unreliable sources per WP:RS . Normal Op, or whatever this editor’s name is now, clearly does not understand the line between NPOV and POV-pushing. I suggest a T-Ban on Normal op for, say, 90 days or more if needed, to assist them in learning how to edit collaboratively and understanding WP:RS. Montanabw^(talk) 00:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support limited topic ban Getting back on topic to the topic ban, I've looked through all of the contributions made by Normal Op/Nomopbs (and speaking as someone who knows little about dogs), there's a mix of edits which are clearly POV-pushing and there's a mix of edits which seem okay. A limited topic ban on bulldogs and pit bulls might work, I wonder if a final warning on any advocacy-pushing edits may be a better alternative, along with a temporary two-way interaction ban. I don't see any problems with any of Normal Op's edits in the AfD and DRV, which has been the focus of my involvement in this ANI thread until now, but agree there's enough evidence of a larger problem. SportingFlyer T·C 02:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I should think Lightburst, Hobit, SportingFlyer quite justified in criticizing the deletion prior to DRV. On [61] the deleted Dog World (2005) book was a Ten Speed Press imprint and not a slam-dunk non-RS, so shouldn't have been removed by fiat without discussion prior to DRV. This is tantamount to "bad faith" conduct. It is not as if we are second-guessing you've acted blackheartedly or anything like that, so this "casting aspersions" complaint need not apply.

I will call out Cullen328 et al on lack of vigilance here. Sure, the 16 sources that NoOp listed turn out mostly to be questionable websites or WP:SELFPUB, I can see that. But it included a couple of TV news pieces plus 1 other book [62] which has roughly a column/halfpge on the cross-breed, published by I-5 Publishing which, though I did not know, used to put out Dog Fancy magazine. So Cullen's "Persistent efforts to push garbage sources" is hardly fair, given that NoOp frankly admitted he hadn't yet had the chance to go through the vetting of his list that had a mix of the good and bad, and hadn't gone on to use any of the bad ones in articles. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-RS repeatedly spammed into Scientology articles

User:AndroidCat, a 15-year veteran of Wikipedia, first observed that a non-reliable source had been added to multiple articles by Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs): Timeline of Scientology, Clear (Scientology), Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard. As a result of AndroidCat's comments, the unreliable source was removed pending consensus for its inclusion. Iamsnag12 promptly readded the source right back in to the articles without discussion. [63][64][65][66]. Feoffer (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that NinjaRobotPilot has given this editor a notice of discretionary sanctions regarding Scientology. That's a good first step. There was a major blowup regarding pro-Scientology propaganda editing on Wikipedia over ten years ago. Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia covers that particular controversy. This needs to be nipped in the bud. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging NinjaRobotPirate since I botched the earlier ping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

They're currently edit warring on Clear (Scientology). I agree with Cullen- we can't afford to relive that fiasco. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Eek, nevermind! I misread the difs there. Sorry! TheAwesomeHwyh 05:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but what nonreliable sources were posted? I had listed newspaper articles as well as citations to a paper which gave the images of the actual transcript and letters from Cox himself. If you're saying CESNUR is nonreliable due to bias (which has not been proven just alleged) then how do you justify the obviously anti-Scientology materials as any more reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsnag12 (talk • contribs) 10:54, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

AndroidCat has asserted non-RS on CENSUR, contact them or the RS messageboard for details on how they reached that conclusion or to build a consensus. Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I looked into the publication a bit and it does appear to be scholarly and to have editorial oversight. Perhaps this would be a candidate for the RS noticeboard. But it doesn't seem to be presumptively unreliable. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iamsnag12: I'm going to ask the same question here that I asked on Iamsnag12's userpage: "What is your relationship with Scientology? Are you a Scientologist?" I should also add that this MUST be disclosed. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so the biases come out and yet I am told that I am not warned in other posts. I am at all not surprised. I am curious are all people required to disclose their religion and/or beliefs for other pages? Why is Scientology singled out? Anyway, no I am not a member of the Church of Scientology, but even if I were one, how is that at all relevant? Was anything I posted incorrect? Please let's discuss the actual facts posted, otherwise you are now pivoting from the stance of questioning my sources (which you've not been able to find anything wrong with) to questioning me. Iamsnag12 (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In this case whether or not you are a practicing Scientologist is VERY relevant. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 20:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Iamsnag12, you "forgot" to answer the question. What's your relationship with scientology? 00:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Better question: are you a practicing Scientologist? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

How did I forget to answer the question? I wrote "I am not a member of the Church of Scientology". No, I am not a practicing Scientologist. I'm still waiting on an answer about reasons for reverting my content since the goalposts are being shifted from the content now to me. If you have an issue with my content then discuss it, otherwise I am being singled out for no good reason. Iamsnag12 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ngokevin rapid fire promotional campaign in progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This account was created on 7 April 2016 and didn't do anything at all until six days ago. It's clearly a sleeper sock but I cannot say of who. Their comment that they're an "expert on the policies of that candidate" ([67], later corrected to "informed on" [68]) is concerning since they only seem to have woken up to put Yang's name into as many articles as possible. Could be AIFP, I had a look at behaviour and AIFP is definitely a Yang enthusiast although their more recent socks just seem to want to be disruptive on the primaries generally, and Ngokevin doesn't have enough talk page posts to really compare. I doubt CU would tell us anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack § Infobox and suspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspicious Edits

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

---

New user MasterAju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 87 edits in three days. Some have been reverted as disruptive/vandalism. Other seems like they might be OK. This could be just an inexperienced new user (warnings on talk page have not been answered, but they have not been there that long either). Some edits seem pointless such as this and this which may indicate the user is trying to obtain autoconfirmed status and may be a sock. The first edit to their user page added a infobox... MB 00:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI against the above user here, based on similar style and edit areas. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This user made an infobox and accidentally added his original name (Harshal Khawse; which incidentally is similar to FlyingHarshk) and later edited it to MasterAju. Most edits are pointless date changes or quick edits on the first few lines of the page. - GreaterPonce665 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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:[69][70][71][72] 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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • What are you hoping to achieve by attacking me? Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

@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)

• @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)

• 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)
• 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)
• @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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/YMB29 If I got you mad at me I apologize.Jack90s15 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

@Moxy: I wouldn't mind that 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)

Misleading sentences and removal of needed templates

This IP user[73] is obviously Wikipedia:Nothere to contribute constructively. The user uses weasel words ("some") to mislead readers and don't seem to be interested in arguing in the talk page.[74]. Reverts the POV templates as well. The Yazidis page has already been vandalized a lot in the last couple of months and lost its protection status yesterday. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not how it is. I added sourced information and you just deleted it.[75] and you accused me of POV push and OR without reading the sources. Best wishes 91.236.142.212 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• 91.236.142.212, I agree with you that there are no weasel words and OR. I've noted that you have properly referenced the added material. You have also already reverted 3 times on that page. Please read WP:3RR. So please slow down. One more revert, irrespective of who is right or wrong, and you will get blocked. I will advise both of you that this is a content dispute and can't be handled here. This should be handled on the talk page of the article. Open up a new section and editors can discuss the added material and the references used. Follow WP:DR for resolving the dispute. Thanks, Lourdes 09:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Using the opinion of one person and generalize it to "some" is very troublesome (and is OR since the article does not indicate in any way that the opinion is generally held). If that sentence is going to stay, It needs . --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious that you did not read the sources properly. It's not just an individual but "some" (just like the source says) "Some are glad the Kurds have gone and see an opportunity for increased autonomy now that they are under federal control following the offensive by Iraq’s security forces last October."[76] (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)

The wording is only half of my problem here. Let's discuss the second half: Out of the hundreds of scholars out there (including the more recent ones), what makes George Walter Prothero's opinion unique and why is he squeezed into the introduction? Also, 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 indicates that others are unhappy that Kurds left Yazidi territory and want to be part of Kurdistan. Or am I missing something? Again, why is this relevant and squeezed into the introduction? --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Persuading the user to use the talkpage to seek consensus doesn't work[77] and their reckless edits at Yazidis have already disorganized the article a lot. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said earlier, not every piece of information should be included in the introduction of an article. There are certain sections for this. Especially on this topic where the origin is disputed. Since yesterday, you are deliberately operate an Editwar and removing sourced information and accuse me of POV push. You had reported me here because I had removed two templates. And as the admin had already recognized there were no weasel words and OR and everything was properly sourced. I think you are simply for personal purposes not satisfied with the information and deliberately misrepresent things. Best wishes 91.236.142.212 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: As someone who has not read the article in question, this seems like it's mostly a content dispute. I feel like the only real thing here is that 91.236.142.212 is apparently refusing to interact on the talk page. So, maybe focus on that? 91.236.142.212, why aren't you saying any of this on the talk page? Loki (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

COI and multiple accounts

• ShauneenBeukes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SBeukes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rtsclement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aspen Pharmacare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ShauneenBeukes is a name match for a marketing manager at Aspen Pharmacare. The account was blocked for spamming and unblocked per a COI commitment. Rtsclement appeared shortly afterwards, and is a WP:SPA. A new account SBeukes was registered in Feb 2019. No COI declaration was made. This performed mainspace edits to the Aspen article. At this case I am inclined to banninate. What do others think? These are all stale for CU of course, so it's WP:DUCK. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pretty clear violation of the first user's COI agreement, though I'm not sure if this really counts as socking since the first account is two years stale. Odds are they forgot about their first account and made a new one, and who knows, they might have forgotten about the COI talk in that time too. In the name of WP:AGF I'd be inclined to give the new account this one chance to answer the COI warning (maybe it would help to also point out the previous account), and drop the banhammer if they don't acknowledge it or continue editing. That said, the second account is half a year stale, so I don't expect any further action. creffett (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• The quacks are so loud that they hurt. The sole purpose of all of hem is promoting this one company, and none of them has edited any other topic. So ban them and be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand why you're interested in this now. Two of the users last edited in 2017, and the other about six months ago. I personally wouldn't block anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Because I fouind the article while reviewing self-published sources, and noticed that it was largely spam. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I can't see any good reason not to block the lot for breach of their unblock condition and/or meatpuppetry, Guy. Although I expect that when they want to add some more marketing spam, they'll just create another account. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious?

• Diamond145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TD-Linux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.11.73.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• AV1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The AV1 was bloated out with promotional text citing PR as "sources" (the ref. names even included PR in many cases). I cleaned this up and pruned back to something that isn't obviously written by their advertising agency and a curious thing happened: Diamond145, who hasn't ten previous edits and hasn't edited since March 2016, came along and reverted. I undid this and up popped 62.11.73.23 and then immediately TD-Linux, who has 11 previous edits, none tot his article, ad last edited in May. This either has to be off-wiki solicitation or sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I saw it mentioned on Twitter. So technically off-wiki solicitation. TD-Linux (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing the sources on the talk page first, and then, if there's a consensus to use any of them, expanding the article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 20:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I have a COI which is why I've previously stayed out of the article. I'll comment on the talk page to see if it's still possible for me to contribute. TD-Linux (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect Diamond145 does as well. It wouild be good if the article didn't read like an advert, for a start, but Diamond145 just reverted again. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I self-reverted out of an abundance of caution. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 21:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls and WP:ASPERSIONS

@SashiRolls: has implied that I am somehow responsible for a personal attack that appeared on their talk page earlier today, and I am "punishing" them for edits elsewhere. Since it's a fairly serious accusation, I think it makes sense to go ahead and bring it here to let admins take a look.

I've previously asked SashiRolls to refrain from casting similar aspersions on other editors, and they've apparently got a "No personal comments" sanction from Awilley already. So, at a minimum, maybe someone should reiterate that WP:AGF probably precludes insinuating that other editors are conspiring to attack or punish them for their editing. Nblund ^talk 21:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me be crystal clear: I do not think that you wrote on my talk page. You were busy elsewhere. I am annoyed that I'm being harassed. If you have no sympathy about people being harassed, that's OK. Please don't add to it by starting pointless WP:ANI threads.

I apologize for letting the aggressivity of the tone at Talk:Tulsi Gabbard get under my skin. I am logging out. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [78]

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)

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)

• 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 [79], with Snoogans [80]

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

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

Snoog 1, Snoog 2, Snoog 3, Aquillion 4, which was Aquillion's first ever edit to Jill Stein [81]. 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 [82]; S1, A2, which was the only edit Aquillion has ever made to Brexit [83]. 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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

Non-RS again being inserted into Scientology-related articles

In behavior discussed four daya ago in an above thread, Iansnap12 (talk · contribs) added non-RS sources concerning Hubbard's literary agent Forrest Ackerman. This user has again added Ackerkman-related material, now citing an online auction as a RS. Feoffer (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs), not Iansnap12 (talk · contribs). TheAwesomeHwyh 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You also forgot to notify them of this discussion, which I have done for you. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I can give another source beyond the auction if that's the only issue, but given that the auction actually has images of the diploma, that seems pretty conclusive does it not? Iamsnag12 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Look- I'm not entirely comfortable editing in this area so I'm just going to stop now. I'm not going to make any comments relating to this unless it's really needed. Peace, TheAwesomeHwyh 02:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Likewise leaving to the admins for cleanup, but seems to violate WP:RS and WP:NOR; second incident in less than a week. Feoffer (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember that Scientology as a topic area is under discretionary sanctions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 03:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Brazil wildfires

There's an IP in 2019 Brazil Wildfires talk page that insists that Wikipedia is promoting racism and that there's an "1th world campaign against Brazil and it's people". Is clearly an behavioral issue and I think that is necessary an third party help to calm him and maybe is necessary to close this topic in a way to avoid anything that he could say that could be harmful to himself. What do you think? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't seems to be doing anything in the article itself, but I think that is necessary an ADM help. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Chronic disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is User:Tapered? This thread can be closed and reopened (after taking a week breather from it) by any editor so inclined. User:Tapered is not taking responsibility for what they've initiated. They said "Can I remove this section?"[84] Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refusal to accept third opinion

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

---

• The Real Housewives of New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AnAudLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KyleJoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user and I were involved in a dispute regarding this article, after which I sought a third opinion, which was given here. The user then changed the subject of the discussion entirely and shifted the focus away from the third opinion given, as displayed here. They instead expressed intent to suggest a new Wiki policy, fully knowing that they already did so to no support, as displayed here, to prolong the discussion. I'm wondering whether now it is acceptable to edit the article according to the majority view because the last time I did that, the user immediately reverted it, and I do not want to start an edit war. Thank you in advance for the assistance! KyleJoan^talk 08:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have provided many references for proper alphabetization. I did have support in the MOS suggestion topic, they just didn’t boldly write “Support”, please re-read. You did start an edit war at the beginning of July and reverted all of my changes repeatedly and you were suspended for a week, then you lied about why you were suspended during your appeal and they changed it from 1 week to 1 month for that deception. And...it was your 6th block. So let’s be honest here. I think before we reach a final decision more debate should be done. There should be consistency across Wikipedia to avoid confusion and misinformation. It’s not about “winning” as you so firmly believe, it’s about doing something correctly and consistently. AnAudLife (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Two separate matters: article discussion and proposed Wiki policy. I'm addressing the former and presenting the majority view, as displayed here when I started the discussion, here, and here. I only brought up the proposed Wiki policy that didn't come to fruition to detail how the focus of the discussion was shifted to distract from the third opinion given to settle the dispute between two editors regarding a specific article. KyleJoan^talk 08:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Another separate matter: my block, which was for edit warring, not vandalism. Therefore, it had nothing to do with the content I was presenting; content with which two editors have since agreed. KyleJoan^talk 09:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The article should reflect what is correct information. Which I have tried to convey here and in MOS. It should be the same across the board. And I have never “vandalized” a page, ever. Nor have I ever gotten blocked. And your last block occurred even though you were warned 5 times prior...where you promised to never do it again, but you did. If Ferdinand de Lesseps is alphabetized by Lesseps, then Luann de Lesseps should be as well, there should be continuity within Wikipedia. AnAudLife (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I look at this dispute and see you, AnAudLife, state your case, and as editors disagree with you one by one, you insist they are wrong, and continue to revert to your own preferred version of the article. This attitude is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's fourth pillar. You either care about achieving consensus or you do not. If this is going to be how you conduct yourself during disputes, you are going to be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have provided several references in complete support of my claim of proper alphabetization. The other user and her “friends” have provided nothing in support of theirs, they have only stated their opinions. Therein lies the difference. In the beginning of July, I saw this error on the page in question and corrected and then user:Kylejoan began reverting to the point of her getting blocked for a month. All I’m asking for is a FAIR consensus, I’ve done my research, provided multiple sources and references, with exact surnames being alphabetized as I have stated that is the norm and I think the other user disputing should as well. There are other users who agree with me and there are other references that support my claim. AnAudLife (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Third Opinion process is not mandatory or binding. The editor giving a third opinion is not an arbitrator. If you feel that you need more voices to establish consensus, I would suggest an RFC. I would also suggest that the tension be toned down somewhat as this seems to be distracting from the editorial process. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• +1 - I second Cosmic Sans's suggestion - Start an RFC - Doing so will get opinions from outside editors, I would suggest closing this too. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: [85])
2. Creating talk pages for non-existent articles (ex: Talk:WOCG_(FM))
3. Adding the Category:Living people to deceased people (ex: [86])
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: [87])
5. Adding parent categories to "Name" articles/disambiguations (ex: [88])
6. Adding non–existent/unverified schools to education sections of geographic areas (ex: [89])
7. Inappropriate categories (ie: adding singer–songwriter to a non-musician)(ex: [90])

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Frustrating experience with an SPA - WP:NOTHERE

I hate doing this with a relatively new user, but I'm getting exasperated. 2019OutlaweD recently pulled a block on wikipedia.nl for personal attacks. They then transitioned their work over to en.wiki. They have remained very focused on the current protests in Hong Kong, with most of their efforts being POV pushing on article talk pages such as this: [91]. I have cautioned them on multiple occasions about WP:NPA, WP:AGF and general use of article talk pages starting here: [92] and continuing to the helpdesk here [93] and here [94]. Their response to my caution was not to approach the user with whom they were having a conflict but rather to return to the article talk where the conflict occurred and significantly refactor the conversation, deleting comments by several other editors in the process [95] this included restoring comments about "you both" being "paid by Beijing" that I (possibly incorrectly) thought was pointed at Ltyl and myself. Though it may be Ltyl and another editor based on their response here [96]. However, having failed to get advice about how to remove an editor they disagreed with at article talk they approached EdJohnston to complain about Ltyl and me: [97]. Considering that I'd been rather gentle with them up to that point, this did nothing to endear me to them. EJ however declined to assist and asked them to follow my advice here: [98]. They rather strangely claimed not to be editing the article in response here: [99] and EJ quite rightly cautioned them about forum shopping [100]. 2019OutlaweD then went back to article talk and began making remarkably inappropriate suggestions for a proposed DYK [101]. Then they went back to helpdesk and claimed that I was a totalitarian, telling me to back off of editing articles about Chinese politics (which is something of a specialty of mine so, whatever) [102]. Then they made rather liberal use of the (Personal attack removed) template [103] [104], claimed any news source that contradicted their POV was Chinese propaganda [105] and made additional claims of persons being "paid by Beijing" (though I am uncertain whom, possibly the HK police?) [106].

In short this user, already blocked on one Wikipedia project for personal attacks severely enough that they pulled a talk page block seems to have exported their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to a particularly fraught area of en-wiki. They routinely insult other editors, treat article talk pages as a forum, have no interest in WP:NPOV, and seem to see Chinese agents in every shadow. They WP:FORUMSHOP when they don't get their way, have little regard for the comments of other editors, and are clearly here only to right great wrongs. They've refused to listen when I've tried to help them. And the only reason they haven't been up to the drama boards yesterday is because of WP:BITE. But even that has an asterix, as their dutch userpage claims they're a previous user who returned, although they've declined to disclose their previous account. [107] (And honestly, their userpage comment there seems to imply they may be circumventing a long-term block although I'd not hazard any certainty on that considering I was using translation software.)

With all this in mind, I am not convinced their participation represents a net positive to en-wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

ETA this is small beans but I checked with some sources I trust and it kind of falls under WP:NOTHERE - they have been using their sandbox here to edit pages in Dutch [108] which might also be considered cross-wiki abuse considering they continued doing so after they were blocked on nl-wiki. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that the statements in relation to my account are accurate. Ltyl (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue; please excuse any errors on my part. For those who are not familiar with the Dutch Wikipedia: I am an administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia and I've blocked 2019OutlaweD for a week. The problems are exactly the same: adding POV to some articles. It was made undone by a user and that user became the victim of his assaults. All moderators were 'influenced by Chinese propaganda'. Remarkable is his complete lack of self-reflection. He assaults users, but he thinks he is the one being assaulted.

I can also confirm that he claims to by a previous user who returned, but I don't think he is circumventing a long-term block. He claims to be from Hong Kong and that seems to be likely, as he is probably not a Dutch native speaker. His Dutch is very good, but it hasn't yet reached native level.

Using your sandbox on the English Wikipedia while blocked on the Dutch one is prohibited. He asked me to re-open his Dutch sandbox, which I refused. He is circumventing his block and I have blocked him indefinitely on the Dutch Wikipedia. If you have any questions feel free to ask, Floortje Désirée (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Floortje Désirée. This is too bad. I have blocked the user indefinitely here, too. Thank you for reporting, Simonm223. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC).

user:Mztourist's disruptive editing

The user continuously makes disruptive editing on article Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991.[109] He keeps claiming he has "consensus" and refusing to resort to DR process without any proper reasoning in line with WP:CON.[110] 1.43.12.127 (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Polemic user page

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

---

User:Blaue Max is little more than a collection of hundreds of polemic quotations. The "On Judaism" section, for example, is a collection of anti-semitism, "On Islam" is a collection of Islamophia, "On Feminism and Sexuality" is misogyny. It's basically a litany of bigotry against every group who doesn't appear to share Blaue Max's obvious conservative Catholicism, barring a few sections perhaps, and totally contrary to Wikipedia's inclusive ethos. I considered just going to MfD with it, but I thought it might be worth some wider attention. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC) (Thanks to Katie at WO for the heads-up).

I went there expecting to argue with you—I've always been firmly of the school that it's better for all concerned for editors to be upfront about their prejudices, so everyone else is aware of where they're coming from—but this is just an open sewer. The only reason I haven't WP:U5'd it straight away is that it's better to have a consensus (here or at MfD) to prevent it being recreated. ‑ Iridescent 14:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've always been in two minds about whether it's better to state your political/religious/etc opinions openly here, or to keep quiet about them and strive in your writings to make it impossible for anyone to tell. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 on a U5. Quotations, even repugnant ones, are certainly allowed on user pages, but the guidelines say "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material". This ain't it.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm at work and so would rather not look at that page, but based on the above comments and considering that it looks like that user page represents a significant portion of the user's contribs, I would suggest an immediate U5 with an explanation on the talk page beyond the boilerplate. If the user recreates, I would suggest that they're here to build an encyclopedia and block. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Concur U5 is the correct course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, please U5. "Open sewer" is about right. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a textbook example of WP:UP#POLEMIC.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I happened to read this while skimming the page after catching up on the report I filed above, and I concur with the calls for U5. The "On Decadence" section captions a photo of London Pride "Hell is empty and all the devils are here", for crying out loud. (A bit of irony there, I suppose.) Their most substantial edit apart from their own user page in months has been this. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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 or an IDHT/CIR block. GiantSnowman 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Indef Topic 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)

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)