Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:36, 8 September 2019

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Chronic disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thing is Bus Stop that this has been going on for years. What about this as an eg? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)

Formal proposal 1

Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Misplaced Pages. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page. This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have notified Anthony22 on their talk page about this proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken—can you address why your suggestion is preferable to escalating blocks if edits made by Anthony22 are deemed block-worthy? Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• He has a history of going away for a while when criticized, then resuming his behavior after everyone has moved on to other things. Escalating blocks are thus unlikely to solve the underlying problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Further, escalating blocks are a haphazard solution, requiring admins to recognize the situation and its history and apply the blocks, or an editor to report A22 to the noticeboards, where a discussion such as this one is likely to result. The offered proposal seeks to short circuit that waste of time and energy and cut to the core of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. This can be addressed by more moderate means such as escalating blocks. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as being the remedy that is most likely to solve the problem. The usual "edit productively in other areas for six months and then feel free to appeal" language should be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I am very reluctant to support any kind of block or ban, but the ongoing disruption and time-wasting doesn't leave a lot of options, sadly. If Anthony had made any effort at all to engage with the discussion (here, on his own talk page, or in another talk page) I would feel differently, but I'm afraid that this is the only way that this issue will be resolved constructively (without repeating the cycle of people complaining, Anthony hiding out for a little while, and then resuming the disruption after everyone has forgotten). Michepman (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It's more complex than I would prefer, and some of the persistent issues will still manifest in the content that it allows him to add. But it's far better than nothing. He may well choose not to add anything, since he hasn't shown much interest in sources or citations. My earlier rant may have been overblown; we'll see. It occurred to me after I wrote it that a formal proposal had not been attempted; thanks to BMK for starting it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Mandruss: I'm aware that my proposal doesn't give everyone everything they would want, but I tried to craft it so that Anthony22 wouldn't be driven away from editing, and would have the opportunity to contribute in a productive way, but with safeguards (i.e. requiring references for additions and talk page explanations for deletions) that would help keep his contributions on the straight-and-narrow. I'll admit it's not a perfect solution, but I wanted to do something to get the ball rolling and possibly wrap up this overly extended discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per Michepman- the lack of engagement or explanation and the ongoing time required to reverse the errors combined mean there is no obvious alternative.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support; Anthony22 has been a tremendous time-sink for a number of articles (and editors) for a long time. He especially likes to edit GA and FA rated articles because he feels they are so poorly written. I have in the past left messages on his talk page as to articles and his editing, but he has refused to listen to reason. I agree with Michepman, Mandruss and NEDOCHAN in their comments. Kierzek (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open. By the way, there is a staggering difference of opinion on the issue of constructive vs. disruptive editing. The overwhelming majority of Misplaced Pages articles are very poorly written with terrible grammar, spelling, punctuation, chronology, logic, and sentence structuring. I have attempted to correct those mistakes. Some of the people who revert my edits are doing more harm than good. There has been a staggering waste of time and effort on my part as well as a waste of time of the revert "specialists". The first thing that you have to recognize about Misplaced Pages is the fact that the information cannot be verified. Even with so-called "reliable" sources, don't bet your life on what you read in the articles. The most hilarious newspaper headline of all time was, "Dewey Defeats Truman" in 1948. Misplaced Pages has also had some silly headlines.Anthony22 (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• This appears to be a statement that you will sockpuppet to avoid any editing restrictions that the community chooses to impose. I suggest that you clarify what you mean here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't say that I would actually do this. I said that I could do this if I wanted to continue editing. I'm beginning to think that it's a waste of time to edit on Misplaced Pages.Anthony22 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• And here we see nub of the problem, Anthony22: you really do not seem to have the ability to express in writing what you intend to express. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Please re-read the proposal carefully. If it is accepted by the community, you would not be blocked from editing, you would be disallowed from making what are referred to as "copyediting" changes, changes in grammar or syntax. I disagree that the "overwhelming majority of Misplaced Pages articles are very poorly written", although it is indisputably the case that there is a significant amount of poor writing. That, however, is not relevant to this discussion, because the issue here is not that articles are badly written, the issue is that your attempts to fix them do not generally improve those articles, and there is little "staggering difference of opinion" about that: the clear consensus in the discussion above agrees that your "improvements" just aren't improvements. The rest of your argumentation is irrelevant at best, specious at worst.I agree with Nigel Ish that your first two sentences appear to be a threat to sock if you are blocked. I would advise you to strike those sentences, which amount to an argument that no one should ever be blocked for any reason at any time, because they can always sock their way around the block. Such a viewpoint shows a fundamental disrespect for Misplaced Pages and its editing community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that no one should be blocked from editing at any time. Editors who vandalize articles can and should be blocked. What I AM saying is that you cannot stop someone from getting around a block. Personally, I would not register a new account with a different username to get around a block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony22 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• If you have no intention of socking, what the heck is the point of bringing it up? We're not having some abstract intellectual discussion about editing on Misplaced Pages, we're examining whether your editing is helpful or not and whether you should be sanctioned in some way. In that context -- the only reasonable context there is -- your talking about socking can only be taken as a threat to do so. I can't believe that any independent observer would take it as anything else.Please keep your commentary here focused on why you should not be sanctioned or, at the very least, acknowledge what other editors are complaining about and give some assurances that you won't continue to do it. What your general thoughts are about Misplaced Pages are nothing but a distraction and, frankly, an apparent dodge from dealing with your own problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per lengthy discussion in the previous section, and per Anthony22's response immediately above. When finally motivated enough to respond, Anthony22's response was a denial of any problem, a repudiation of WP:V, and a veiled threat to sock. Jayjg 19:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• There was no "veiled threat to sock". What you are engaging in I would characterize as "language policing". Bus stop (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Really?

  What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open. (emphasis added)

  Bus stop, please don't start that garbage again. That most certainly was a threat to sock, not an anstract statement, no matter how much Anthony22 seeks to deny it, or how many blind eyes you wish to turn to it, as you have been doing throughout this discussion in regard to Anthony22's behavior. Your participation here has been unhelpful and obstructive, and I, for one, would like to see you stop it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• You're right about one thing--the threat wasn't veiled at all. I'm starting to think Anthony22 isn't the only one who requires a sanction as a result of this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: See below. Jayjg 19:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Misplaced Pages.........This topic ban can be appealed no earlier than 6 months after it is imposed.

When I read those opening words, I thought that I had been blocked from editing for the next 6 months. I misinterpreted the wording, which is VERY confusing. I still don't know what "topic banned" means if I have not been blocked.Anthony22 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You can read about topic bans here: WP:Topic ban. I'm astounded that after 13 1/2 years on Misplaced Pages and 34,363 edits, you have no idea what a topic ban is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, I think that Anthony is confused and believes that the proposal on this page about topic banning him is in fact a notification that he has already been blocked. I don't think that he is saying that he doesn't know what a ban is, he only misconstrued the proposal on this page as something that has already been enacted. Michepman (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If he had actually been blocked, he wouldn’t have been able to edit this page, now would he? It is clear that there are a lot of concepts he doesn’t understand. Anthony, nothing has been done here yet, but here is what is being proposed: Nobody is suggesting that you be blocked, which would mean you couldn't edit anywhere on Misplaced Pages except your own talk page. The topic ban proposal means that you would still be able to edit. You could make content edits, such as adding sourced information or removing incorrect information, but you would not be allowed to make any edits along the lines of "correcting" prose style or grammar or other language usage. If this topic ban is enacted, you would have to stop doing that kind of edit. And if you did it anyhow, then you would be given a brief block from editing, with longer blocks if you keep doing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and in case this hasn’t already been made clear: you must NOT create a new account to let you do things you have been blocked or banned from doing. That’s called making a sock puppet and it is very much against the rules here. If you do that it will get you immediately blocked from all editing.-- MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Methinks Anthony22 is purposely pretending to misunderstand. He could have easily cut and pasted "Formal proposal: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community" but instead he edited the original, changing it to "Comment: Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community". I believe he edited the original so that he could pretend to not understand that it is a proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion, Anthony. I know your belief is 'The overwhelming majority of Misplaced Pages articles are very poorly written with terrible grammar, spelling, punctuation, chronology, logic, and sentence structuring.' The point that many editors have been making for a very long time on your talk page and elsewhere is that your attempts to improve such things do not improve them. Most of the time, your edits actually make the text worse than it was before. You also tend to target featured articles for your copy edits. These have normally been scrutinised quite carefully. That doesn't mean they're perfect but they're not going to be 'terrible'. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - addresses the disruption while giving Anthony the opportunity to establish a more constructive editing pattern. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Between the refusal to even acknowledge the discussion, the multiple examples of problematic editing, and the subsequent declaration that blocking is no big deal since one can just sock, it's an easy call. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Anthony 22 is continuing is exactly the same manner. The editor is making a series of edits that are being reverted. A decision needs to be made. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chappaquiddick_incident&action=history NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Anthony22's editing behavior is a clear and years-long running case of WP:IDHT by not acknowledging or discussing feedback pertaining to their edits are not an improvement and are not helpful (See diffs I posted in the above discussion). This has also been demonstrated in their above first statement as well as countering with a plan for sockpuppeting. In fact, their edits over time are considered disruptive as often as not. Their intractable attitude about the poor state of prose that needs correcting is not germain to GA and FA articles, which they have barged in on without first discussing it. Also, the poor state of prose argument is countered by the negative feedback on their talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also thanks to @Beyond My Ken: for initiating this formal proposal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: discipline should be instructive not destructive - also gradual, not straight to death penalty. The least diff that was reverted...perpetrator, accused- is a matter or perspective Lightburst (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't see the point of this rather vaguely phrased and malleable topic ban. Having to seek the talk page for every little edit is really asking too much. My proposal, and I would have acted on it if there hadn't been this competing proposal, is an indefinite block, and I'll tell you why: a. Anthony22 couldn't be bothered to show up here until days after the case was made here; b. when they did they didn't understand what was being proposed (a matter of competence); c. when it was explained to them they still didn't understand and suggested they might start socking; d. they blamed others; e. this edit and this edit--completely unacceptable, even idiotic, and they couldn't be bothered to respond on their own talk page.

  Summing up: we have a lack of grammatical and editorial competence, an unwillingness to engage in conversation with other editors, a refusal to deal with and learn from criticism, and a display of disregard for the collaborative nature of this project. An indefinite block is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies: In what way is the proposal "vaguely phrased". What I intended it to say was:

• Anthony22 cannot make any stylistic or grammatical changes to text;
• Anthony22 can add text to articles, but only if it is supported by a citation from a reliable source;
• Anthony22 can remove text from articles, but he has to immeidately explain his ereasoning for removals on the article's talk page.

In what way does the proposal not convey that intention? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• BTW, it's not too late to propose an indef block; I'm betting that there would be a fair amount of support for that. It's hardly unusual for both a topic ban and an indef to be approved by the community at the same time, so that if the subject editor is un-indeffed, the topic ban would still be in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• BTW(2) - In my opinion, it's generally better to support a sanction which is less encompassing then the one that would be preferred, on the age-old grounds "Better this than nothing." An "oppose" only helps there to be nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, "stylistic or grammatical" is inherently vague. As a grammarian, I will maintain that capitalization and punctuation, for instance, have nothing to do with grammar. And "style", does that point to how one phrases things and composes sentences? What about formatting, meaning the Wiki code? I think that this kind of thing will just lead to bickering and wikilawyering. On the bright side, if this passes, the editor seems to have so little interest in conversation that maybe it'll never come to that. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would argue that to a non-expert, the language is quite clear, that colloquially it defines what Anthony22 can and can't do sufficiently to put a stop to the problem -- especially when "broadly construed" is taken into consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as written The requirement to support every little deletion on the talk page is too onerous, and the second sentence is too detailed. I could support a proposal that says something along the lines of: "Anthony22 is indefinitely prohibited from making edits that are purely stylistic or grammatical. A different sanction that I think might address the problem in a different way is: Anthony22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. This would be more enforceable, since the number of edits per day is something we can easily quantify. I'm also open to any sanction that Mandruss might propose, since they seem to have a deeper understanding of the problem than anybody else in the thread. ~Awilley (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion, so I'll just say once more what I said to Drmies: opposing this proposal because of disagreements with its wording will only have the effect of making it more likely that no sanction again Anthony22 is going to be approved at this time, and the problem will simply continue. An "oppose" !vote does not necessarily lead to a different sanction, but it will lead to deep-sixing this one.I would encourage anyone who has !voted "oppose as written" to change their vote to "support" in order that something be done about the problem of Anthony22, or that they fashion their own proposal and put it up for community consideration without waiting for this discussion to be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, I had read your replies to Drmies already, and I still think that no sanction is preferable to a bad sanction. My preference would be for either a better sanction to be proposed, or for the closing admin to modify the sanction in closing, fixing the problems and adjusting for the opposes. ~Awilley (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  OK. I can't say that I understand your logic, that it's better not to solve a problem at all than to solve it imperfectly, but so be it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I had already suggested something close to "no direct addition, removal, or alteration of article prose", per my general belief that simpler is usually better. As I've indicated, there are many other ways to contribute to the project, and some of them are more meaningful to the project than language tweaking. But I also believe, like BMK, that perfect is the enemy of good, so I'll refrain from making a Proposal 4. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment How's this as an eg? ' The words "expert" and "opinion" are not usually attached to each other.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=D._B._Cooper&diff=914073654&oldid=914072165) Please can some action be taken?NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the above discussion, but mostly because of Anthony22's lack of understanding the problem --Darth Mike 15:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as written per Awilley. The way it's currently phrased could quite literally apply to EVERY edit anyone makes. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I've decided to go along with @Awilley: and @Drmies: because they are admins who are highly regarded and can be considered as guides that are lighting the trail on this one. I believe that we who Ivoted "support" feel that being even-handed and circumspect is the best approach with the indef ban in a certain area of editing. So, in the spirit of this attitude I have decided on another proposal, proposed by Awilley, which is written below. I am taking into account the feedback that the current proposal might seem confusing to some, as noted by Drmies, Buffs and Awilley. In fact, this confusion might cause others to not comment or Ivote at all. Therefore, a more succinct proposal seems to be the more rational approach. I still thank BYK for stepping up in the first place, and getting the ball rolling on this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Checking of any one of their many many bad edits shows that the examination of each takes much more effort than the original edit. This soaks up an enormous amount of time and effort. Compulsive editing, editing to fill up time, editingis to scratch dubious itches, and editing based most obviously on lack of skill / knowledge / experience is heinous abuse of the community, cumulatively. I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed more globally already. Shenme (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Too broad. Anthony may not change "an computer mouse" to "a computer mouse"? This is virtually impossible to enforce. A better response would be an indefinite block: someone who's routinely disrupting articles over the long term, and demonstrably thinking about sockpuppetry, is a long-term negative to this project. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a spelling correction -- correcting a typo. It does not fall under the proposed TBan even broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support but perhaps an easier solution might be a topic ban from more narrowly specific types of edit, and I'd suggest spelling, spacing, or punctuation changes. Perhaps we won't need an actual block. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• As the proposer, it was my intention that "stylistic and grammatical changes" would include spelling, capitalization, spacing and punctuation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a non-admin. With the en.Misplaced Pages's now large size and scope it is becoming increasingly onerous to police established articles WP:Competence is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC).
• Support. Enough is enough, and disruption is disruption. Our goal (at ANI) is to deal with and eliminate disruption, and the editor is clearly disruptive and this has been going on a very long time. This TBan will allow us to see whether the editor is capable of editing in a constructive way, building an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, this seems to me to address the core problem narrowly. Guy (help!) 10:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support this proposal, broadly construed as per discussion above, but I would prefer a definite much shorter time period, maybe a month or two for them to learn a new way of editing. To go directly from no sanction to an indefinite sanction seems contrary to our usual way of dealing with problem editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 2

Formal proposal 3

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit.

• Support as proposer for my above stated reasons in the original proposal. And, quoting Awilley - "This would be more enforceable, since the number of edits per day is something we can easily quantify." -Also, I request that this thread not be archived until it is resolved with an Admin decision. --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm curious as to where in the discussion above you see any complaints about the number of A22's edits, as opposed to the quality of them? I've looked, but perhaps I missed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, it seems to me you're splitting hairs. And I think you are missing the point. What I see in the above discussion is Misplaced Pages action against a disruptive editor - an editor who's behavior appears to be disruptive. Please see WP:DE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, you are correct. Steve Quinn, as much as I appreciate the kind words, it was indeed about the piss-poor quality of at least some of the edits. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I floated this idea when I noticed that A22s M.O. is to swoop in and make 35 consecutive minor edits of questionable quality. This clogs up the article history and places a high burden on people reviewing the edits. Combining those 35 edits into 1 single edit with a daily throttle would have the following effects:
  • Make the edits easier to review and revert if necessary
  • Prevent A22 from edit warring reverted changes back into the article
  • Force A22 to consider very carefully before hitting "Submit" (since one mistake could cause the whole edit to be reverted). I would expect quality of edits to improve if somebody switches from hitting "submit" once per minute to hitting "preview" or "changes" once per minute.
• Anyway that's the rationale here. ~Awilley (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the quality of edits - who is going to determine the quality of each edit? Do we have a "Master of Quality" that volunteers on Misplaced Pages? Quality is a subjective and nebulous term. I think the main issue is that Anthony 22's editing behavior is disruptive - or else this protracted ANI would not be taking place. As I noted above, please see WP:DE. I hate to be nit picky but - where in the guidelines and policies does an editor get gigged for "quality" of edits? I think disruptive behavior is the only thing that can be dealt with here. One edit in 24 hours seems equal to an indef copy editing ban to me. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Prevent A22 from edit warring reverted changes back into the article - To his credit, A22 doesn't edit war. Force A22 to consider very carefully before hitting "Submit" (since one mistake could cause the whole edit to be reverted). He doesn't make "mistakes". He uses poor judgment with hare-brained rationales, and that is not going to be improved by thinking about it longer, even if he did so. Again, this is about aptitude for the type of work.He helpfully writes edit summaries displaying said hare-brained rationales, and that wouldn't be possible if he were forced to bundle 35 edits into one. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support this is a reasonable way to allow Anthony22 to make constructive edits and simultaneously limit unproductive contributions from him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support whichever proposal has the most consensus I have no idea which proposal would best solve the problem, but I figure that if we pick the wrong one and it doesn't work, it would be easy enough to open a new case that takes into account how the last solution failed. So basically I am saying that I prefer the first proposal, I am OK with any alternative proposal, and I strongly oppose doing nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Since this is one edit per day per article, he could still feed his compulsion by simply hitting many more articles. It wouldn't address the issue to change the shape of his activity from deep to broad. Remove the "per article" and we might have something worth considering. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Mandruss:. Sorry about that. I didn't notice that loophole. What I intended is what you are saying. One edit per 24 hours, within the entire mainspace. I struck the loophole. I also refined the statement, noting that he has not been contentious in talk page discussions (because he avoids them?). I hope this is acceptable to everybody. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Steve Quinn: If you change the proposition after !voting, you at least need to notify everybody who has previously !voted. And that's important enough to do it by posting on their UTPs instead of pinging. Users have the option of turning off pings, so you can't depend on them 100%. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Mandruss, OK will do. Thanks for pointing this out. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yikes! One edit per day to the entire encyclopedia? That seems a bit harsh. ~Awilley (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Awilley: Maybe, but perhaps less "harsh" than my simpler preference, which is to divert him into a different area of contribution. I don't see a lot of benefit in agonizing over the best way to allow him to continue in an area that he's demonstrably not well suited for, merely reducing the damage to a manageable level. The mission is to develop a quality encyclopedia; when the needs and desires of individuals conflict with that, the mission should come first in my humble opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  divert him into a different area of contribution Is that a kind way of saying indef-block? If so, I am threatening something along those lines on his talk page if something doesn't change. Also, noting that I've restored the original proposal (since people have already voted on that specifically) and added the new one as an "alternate" that people can support in their votes if they want. ~Awilley (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Awilley: Is that a kind way of saying indef-block? No. See this and this. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I refactored your "alternate" into Proposal 4. Less confusing. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support in the sincere hope that something is done. Anthony22 is doubling down and has been editing furiously in such a way to make it clear that they have no intention whatsoever of addressing other editors' concerns. Something has to be done. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I understand the intent behind this proposal, but I'm not a huge fan. I think what's being overlooked here isn't just the fact that his edits are unhelpful but that he basically ignores everyone who tries to talk to him. It took him over a week to respond on WP:ANI when this case was open (and in the meantime continued editing in the problematic way), ignored repeated requests on his talkpage to engage, and when he finally did show up his first comment was to remind us that he can just use a sockpuppet account if he was banned. I think any sanction should come with (at a minimum) a firm recommendation that, if he does get into conflicts with other editors about quality and content, that he make reasonable, good faith efforts to discuss it with them rather than just barrelling forward with changes that end up being reverted. Without this admonishment, I am worried that this proposal will just create a weird sort of slow motion ripple effect where he messes up articles with large edits, those are reverted, and then he does it again the next day... and the next day... Michepman (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Meh - See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I realize he's making lots of changes, but there's lots I'm ok with. In my review, I only saw a handful that were clearly incorrect but could have been honest mistakes. I don't see a need to block for that. Perhaps a solution where he's required to document what's been changed more clearly in the edit summaries so mistakes can be more easily reverted (seems to be a bigger problem). Buffs (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal in no way deals with the problem. The problem is not that he makes separate edits for each of his "corrections"; in a way that is helpful, since it shows at a glance what he has been doing and why. It would actually be worse if he bundled his ten or twenty "corrections" into a single edit with a generic edit summary. The problem is that his "corrections" more often than not make the article worse, not better. He should be prohibited from making stylistic or grammar changes, because more often than not they have to be changed back. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 4

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.

Difference from proposal 3: "per article" removed. Actually initially added as a "proposal 3 alternate" by Awilley; i.e. I'm merely refactoring. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support this in addition to 1. Both are significantly better than nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Meh - still doesn't address the problem, which proposal 1 at least attempts to,Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• What does "meh" mean? In this case it means "If this proposal gets consensus then I'm OK with it being enacted, but it's definitely my second choice after proposal #1, which at least attempts to directly address the problem." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is your Proposal 4 meh different from your Proposal 3 meh? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• No, they're about the same. This sanction is so restrictive that you might as well just indef the guy instead. Proposal 3 means that he'll combine all his little edits into one big one, and the choice will be to either delete the entire thing (because the majority of his changes will be very poor), or unknitting it to leave in the small number of good changes. Neither seems to me to be the result we're looking for. I do wish someone would close my Proposal 1 (which is currently at 13-5 after 5 1/2 days) since I just went through his recent edits and reverted the typically poor ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Re "I do wish someone would close my Proposal" I am often the person who posts a "call for close" when a discussion has reached the point where waiting won't change the result, but normally Iait until there are no new !votes for three full days (longer if the consensus isn't overwhelmingly on one side) before considering that. There are still proposals that are gathering !votes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support whichever proposal has the most consensus I have no idea which proposal would best solve the problem, but I figure that if we pick the wrong one and it doesn't work, it would be easy enough to open a new case that takes into account how the last solution failed. So basically I am saying that I prefer the first proposal, I am OK with any alternative proposal, and I strongly oppose doing nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose See above. Buffs (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as above. Was it really necessary to start a whole new section? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 5

Anthony 22 is blocked for 30 days. Anthony 22 is encouraged to take this time to have a discussion on his talk page regarding how his behavior must change to avoid further blocks. Members of the community are encouraged to join that discussion, with an emphasis on having a calm, reasoned conversation that encourages Anthony 22 and teaches him how to become a productive and non-disruptive editor.

• Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not as much against this if the community really believes his edits are disruptive. If a dozen editors were doing this, we wouldn't have a problem. Why is it so different if it's one editor? Buffs (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• If a dozen different editors were each making smaller numbers of low quality edits and refusing to engage in discussions with other editors, from a practical perspective they would be harder to notice, and the extra work of dealing with a dozen editors might be seen as too much work. It would still be a problem though; just a harder-to-solve problem.

Let's look at it the opposite way: Every day we get a huge number of editors (IP and registered) who vandalize one page and then disappear forever. The vandalism gets reverted by whoever notices it first and we instantly forget about those editors. What would we do if the exact same number of vandalizing edits were all done by one user? Would the "if it was a thousand editors we wouldn't have a problem" argument save that one editor from being blocked? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, Guy Macon (talk · contribs). Let’s be honest — there probably ARE a dozen or more editors who — cumulatively — cause as much as disruption and produce as much poor quality edits as Anthony22. That actually makes his behavior WORSE, not better. A good faith editor that is as bad as a dozen vandals combined is a big problem. Michepman (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Ortizesp and page moves (again)

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

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

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

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

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

You have been using the 'technical request' function, which is not if you just think the name should be changed - as its name suggests it is for technical moves, for example if you are undoing a dodgy page move but cannot because you do not have sufficient rights. You have been gaming the system (innocently or not). How many articles have you moved using that page as you have admitted here? You have been told repeatedly in the past to use Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. I admit error on my part, but from genuine misunderstanding rather than maliciousness. If I have to incur another ban, so be it, but I hope you can see how confusing this is from my point of view.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained campaign of misattribution of views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These include:

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

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

This and this forum post.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for acting decisively to block this IP.

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

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

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

Using a talk page to attack an editor

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

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

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

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

The thing is, I read the thread numerous times, wondering if the wrong link had been posted. Obviously the two participants knew who they were talking about, but I don't see any way that anybody else reading that thread could figure out that Nishidani was being referred to. If there's absolutely no mention of who the discussion is about, can there be a violation of WP:NPA? and if no one is identified, and insufficient hints have been dropped, how can there be outing? I've certainly have seen Nishidani's name many times before, but there was nothing on that thread which said to me "This is about Nishidani", and nothing there that I could identify as a "partial outing".I think that Nishidani is going to have to explain this in more detail, but if you have to explain a personal attack and a "partial outing" in detail in order to have outsiders recognize them for what you say they are, how valid can those descriptions actually be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

• 2013
• Advice Requested 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In stating:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could be wrong, but "You are an idiot" is a personal attack, "What you said is idiotic" isn't. "You are an anti-semite" is a personal attack, "Your views are anti-semitic" is not, and even less so when one has to go searching (no matter how "trivial") to find out who "you" is.I think you overestimate how many people among the "regulars" keep track of any ongoing disputes between the editors involved, unless by "regulars" you don't mean "regular editors of Misplaced Pages" but "regular participants in Israel-Palestine editing." In determining what is and isn't a personal attack, one should, I think, use a "reasonable person" standard, but you seem to be defining a "person" as someone who holds specialized knowledge, not simply a "reasonable editor of Misplaced Pages", but a "reasonable editor of the Israel-Palestine subject area" (if there is such a thing). Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tedentious editing at Battle of Karbala

I have been working on Battle of Karbala for quite a while to nominate it for GA, and the effort consisted of almost a complete rewrite of the article from POV riddled gibberish into something that falls short of FAC only in prose. This is a religiously sensitive topic and various opinions by various author exist, and conscious effort has been put into portraying opinions as opinions. Recently, there has been effort to rollback the improvement, especially by Snowsky Mountain (talk · contribs), who has a previous record of POV-pushing and tendentious editing (this is not casting aspersions, evidence of previous behavior can be supplied if needed) is now again after inserting POVs and factually inaccurate claims. , . AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

My recent edits to the page that AhmadLX mentioned are not simply tendentious opinions, but rather facts sourced with multiple references. The first edit mentioned by AhmadLX includes information from two books published by Oxford University Press. The second edit concerns the size of an army in the mentioned battle; sources list two possible sizes of the army, but AhmadLX seems to believe that listing both sizes is "tendentious." Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so you will present something as a historical fact because it appeared in a book published by Oxford? Then what about other 48 books listed in bibliography also published by Oxford, SUNY, Brill etc? Are all the conflicting views to be presented in the lead as facts? The source of the army strength cites another source (Aghaie 2004) which doesn't contain the claim. On the other hand, 4,000 figure is cited by all the primary and secondary sources on Islamic history including Encyclopedia of Islam and virtually every other source. You will write 30,000 because it appeared in something completely unrelated to the topic while ignoring the scholarship on the topic? --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I gave two sources for the size of the army. Even if a book was about a certain topic, if it contains information relevant to the topic at hand, what is the problem in using it? Further, even if you did not want to use the two sources listed cited, then the fact that multiple sources note the figure could make it noteworthy. If you look, you could also notice that older versions of the page also provide both figures. That said, how exactly is having two possible (sourced) sizes of the army "tendentious"? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright both of you, stop going at each other, and remember to be WP:CIVIL. Step back for a bit, think, and let some other folks examine the discussion before posting here again. Now, from what I see, this is still mostly a content dispute. A content dispute that neither of you appear to have discussed prior to coming to ANI. So I highly recommend you open a new talk page thread on the issue, and talk it out first. Captain Eek ⚓ 00:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Discussion with this user normally turns into mountains, not walls, of text, like this.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't endorse AhmadLX's edits. Before Snowsky Mountain appears up, he did the same thing to me! AhmadLX needs to engage in talk page discussions instead of making reverts. That said, Snowsky Mountain is also encouraged to bring his objections to the TP. --Mhhossein 12:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not seek your endorsement. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Content dispute – ANI is for urgent or intractable behavior issues. This is a content dispute. While folks may not be interested in talking this out, that's how the process works. Go back to the article talk page and discuss it. If you find that your discussion is hitting walls of text, or that you can't agree, you can always ask for a third opinion, open an RfC, or ask for formal dispute resolution. Now, if in the course of discussion there are behavioral issues, you can come back to ANI. But I believe in y'alls ability to play by the rules and collaborate, and hope this doesn't have to come back here. My other advice to ALL involved parties: keep your answers short and concise, keep it WP:CIVIL, and remember that you may have to compromise. Captain Eek ⚓ 16:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Content dispute. This is a clear content dispute that has received ZERO discussion on the article's talkpage. Please don't come to ANI because you disagree with the content of someone's edits. Please don't repeatedly accuse an editor of bad faith and "old tactics" via edit summaries. Treat every edit and every editor neutrally, and discuss content, not editors. Please don't edit war. Please go to the article talkpage and arrive at WP:CONSENSUS regarding the various content in question. I will say one thing: Snowsky Mountain, this was a fairly massive change and in my opinion should have been discussed on the talk page prior to making it (and the text should go back to the immediate status quo ante until there is consensus for it). Now please all three of you go to the talkpage and discuss content, not editors. Utilize any form(s) of WP:DR necessary. Someone please close this thread now. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yazidis, once again

• Yazidis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related issue: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated personal attacks by Jgriffy98

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

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

Jgriffy98 has a very serious civility problem. Zero 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

User Harassment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User inserted non-RS Scientology source for tenth time, after prior ANI and sanctions alert

Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs), an eight-year-old account with less than 100 edits, has repeatedly added the same non-reliable source to multiple articles. The first four times on 14 August: (Bridge Publication) fixed

Upon removal as a non-RS, user promptly readded without discussion on 15 August: .

User was reported to ANI and alerted to discretionary sanctions , and on 20 August, the material was removed from the four pages by admin User:JzG as a non-RS.

On 31 August, the user re-added the same source for a ninth and tenth time. Feoffer (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support a block Thank you for such a clear presentation of the situation. Perhaps a short block will bring this user's focus to the goals of WP, not a personal endeavor. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a block - There is no consensus that this source is unreliable and in fact, discussion is ongoing at the Talk page for L. Ron Hubbard. I think this is a simple content dispute that does not require admin intervention. Requests for admin sanctions should not supplant the normal editorial process, even if DS are in place. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 16:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  The way I see it, the issue isn't the adding of the source, but the perpetual re-adding without discussion when objections are indeed noted. This is a violation of WP:BRD. Buffs (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The flip side of the coin is that the users who claim that CESNUR is unreliable source are not really participating in the discussion either. From what I can tell, the users who had been immediately reverting Iamsnag have not been engaging in discussion about the source (unless it's happening somewhere that I'm not seeing), with the only exception being Feoffer. And Feoffer made only two comments, and has apparently decided to come to ANI instead of replying further. So the lack of discussion seems to be present on both sides of the fence here. I would really prefer that this be hashed out among the involved editors instead of resorting to ANI. ANI should truly be a last resort. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 19:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Iamsnag12 knows the source is controversial, repeatedly adding it ten times in such a short period suggests WP:NOTHERE, though that's for others to say. Feoffer (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something and I don't think I am since I checked the edit history, the user was not notified of this latest ANI thread as required per the box all over the place. I won't do this myself as I'm on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  Good catch; notified. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Also the editor concerned has not edited since 31 August. Finally AFAICT 3 of the first 4 diffs are the addition of the journal of CESNUR. One of them seems to be some Bridge Publications book so I'm not sure if its inclusion is a mistake. Back to CESNUR I won't comment on its reliability except to say it may be unreliable for the stuff it supported with those 3 diffs but reliable to support the claim a long past BLP person received an honorary degree. And even if it isn't, the Daily Olkahoman was added as well for both of those latest diffs. I'm not sure of the reliability of the Daily Olkahoman but it doesn't look like it was disputed in any of the early diffs and I'm unconvinced just because someone made some mistakes in the past means they need to open a talk page discussion before adding a completely different RS on what seems like a relatively uncontentious issue. I'd also note if those 2 latest diffs are a problem because the Daily Olkahoma is not an RS I'm unsure why they remain. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The fourth CENSUR addition has been fixed. Upon discovering the additional insertion, I reached out to an admin for a sanity check and was referred here. Feoffer (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Have you taken this to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? —A little blue Bori v^_^v 21:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As the person who is under discussion, I have raised this issue on my talk page regarding why CESNUR is disputed and never got a response and it seemed like my material was blocked without explanation that it was allegedly unreliable, yet no reasoning was given. I had not readded, rather because no reasoning as to why it's supposedly non-RS I reversed the reversal on mine as I thought it might be a troll (just as had been assumed with me). I was subjected to being accused of and asked of being a Scientologist which I explained that I am not nor am I associated with their other groups - which even if it was a problem in the past, does not change the content of my submissions.

Additionally, one of my edits (on the Charles Manson page) was already approved which itself was reverted - but because it was assumed that I have ill intentions off of the bat and I was accused without any recourse or explanations as to why CESNUR is supposedly non-RS. Moreover, the links provided to CESNUR actually provide photographic copies of the evidence/material/documents cited. Also had added a different CESNUR article elsewhere and not to the same articles. Additionally, the bulk of my sources are not from CESNUR, as discussed. I was under the impression that the sources cited were read by the editors/administrators to see if there's validity to them vs. dismissed outright based on origin. Iamsnag12 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support block, Clearly WP:NOTHERE. They're at it again and edit warring. Such a narrow focus in edit history and their refusal to accept that their edits have been contested repeatedly, over years. This behavior suggests that this editor may not have been completely honest about their connection to Scientology. They need to learn about consensus and edit warring, POV pushing etc. A temporary block has helped me see the error of my ways in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Are you referring to Iamsnag12 or someone else? Because looking at Iamsnag12 editing history: I see they have 2 edits back in 2011 . Neither of these seem to be well sourced, but neither of these seem to be related to Scientology in any way, and while I'm not going to check what happened to their edits, it's a little silly to suggest these 2 edits were "repeatedly contested". They then left 3 talk pages comments over 5 edits in 2018 + + . I haven't looked in detail at these comments but they don't seem to be the sort of comments that are extremely disruptive and nor that is there a great sign of them "refusing to accept their edits have been contested repeatedly". Taking part in talk page discussions is of course one of the things we generally want from editors, even if in this case it seems to have been partly forced by semi protection. All their other edits are from July 2019 or later. And their talk page was created in 2019 . So where on earth are you getting "refusal to accept that their edits have been contested repeatedly, over years" (emphasis added) from? Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the reaction to Iamsnag has been disproportionately harsh and a prime example of WP:BITE. Editors have made only minimal efforts to interact with him, instead preferring to seek resolution at ANI. Just not an appropriate way to handle such a minor problem in my opinion. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

With regard to Biting the Newbie, user is a not newbie: "I've not recently joined I've been on since 2011. Also, I've posted elsewhere and had other usernames too which tried to merge under this one, not sure if those work but I can point to those edits if needed".

With regard to disproportionate harshness, I will say this: nothing in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology suggests actively inquiring about editor's personal beliefs, as was done to this user . While the suspicion is certainly understandable given the problematic behavior, it seems unhelpful to directly inquire in that way. Misplaced Pages is not the inquisition or the thought police and the project should keep a laser-like focus on problematic behavior. Feoffer (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Nuisance IP

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

94.204.122.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly spamming their belief that the new SPA UmbraImpossible is a sock, repeatedly posting the accusation to the user's userpage and to Talk:Andy Ngo. While I have my concerns with UmbraImpossible (notably, their refusal to comply with the Arbcom Remediations active on the page on the grounds they can't see them) - I would prefer not to WP:BITE a newcomer and would rather WP:AGF - meanwhile the IP is explicitly disruptive. A little help please. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Accusing someone of sockpuppetry without providing a shred of evidence is a personal attack. Doing it repeatedly after being asked multiple times by multiple editors to stop is harassment. Accordingly, the IP has been blocked. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter that an hour after they were blocked for calling another account a sock, that account was blocked as a sock? Liz 22:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Ivanvector's block of the IP was well-deserved. As it happens, the IP is operated by an LTA. I would have CU-blocked if Ivanvector hadn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Rapid era style changes to fast to be guideline compliant, all BCE-BC

IMHO Palindromedairy (talk · contribs) is making changes from BCE to BC too rapidly to have checked to see if they are complying with WP:ERA. The fact that the changes seem to be only one way isn't encouraging. I'm sure some of these changes are correct but I can't see how anyone could do so many so quickly and check them properly. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I started undoing their changes, but stopped after a couple — they seem to be claiming to be undoing ERA changes by someone else. I'll wait for their explanation. El_C 19:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I was able to do them fast because they're all pages which I had previously reverted such changes, so they were together in my history. Every year or so I open them up and see if they've been altered. if you examine each change you'll see I only made such changes on pages where the page was BC/AD. I marked most as minor because they were a couple of characters and in keeping with established guidelines. Anything involving hefty reverts was marked, as you'll see on Template: Bronze Age, Iron Age, Puduḫepa and so on. As for the ones that have been reverted, each was a BC page: Battle of Corinth (which literally has "BC" in the title) was altered to BCE by an anonymous editor in March; Temple of Zeus Olympia by an unregistered user in March 2018; and both Nebuchadnezzar II and Amphictyonic League each featured a few BCE dates in an otherwise BC page and so I can't imagine why they were reverted when it's obvious what I did. I'll be looking to reinstitute such changes once this is cleared up. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If it was done in 2018, it can be considered longstanding text by now, no? El_C 19:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "well, looks like he got away with it" clause for date reversions. WP:Silence is sort of like that, but not really. I see this as worth doing, as any editor does for whatever it is that they do, but not more than once a year or so. It shouldn't be on me (or whomever) to have to check pages every 6 months or 2 months or whatever to make sure nothing slips in before this phantom deadline is reached (though IIRC I tended to shrug and say "it's a done deal" if it was 2017 or so). Palindromedairy (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of the changes are reverting someone else who changed the date format, but other edits look like Palindromedairy is unilaterally changing the date format. For example, in Neolithic Revolution, the first edit uses "BCE". Palindromedairy, however, changes all the "BCE" dates to "BC" under the guise of using a "single dating scheme" despite edit warring against other people who this very thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:ERA, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article." I changed it to a single dating scheme and marked my edit as such (which is why the edit summary says "single dating scheme" and not "reverting date change" or something as my other edits sometimes do). I've literally followed the guidelines. I don't change BCE/CE articles to BC/AD, and if someone gets to it first and makes a mixed page all BCE/CE, I've left it as is. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

At Neolithic Revolution there was a very early switch of that BCE date to "years ago", and then by late 2005 dates were BC; samples suggest it was always BC, or mixed, from then to 2019. In fact there seems to have been a jumble of styles, including lots of BP and "years ago", thoughout nearly all its history. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If the changes were on Christianity related pages or modern Western culture pages, I'd understand the use of BC/AD (similar to STRONGNAT?). But they're not and the changes are only in "one direction". This does not seem neutral prima facia. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a very POV comment imo. Are you American by any chance? Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: What? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also the issue of marking the changes as minor edits. In relationship to User:El_C's question, by sheer coincidence I brought up a related issue at WT:DATE#If an era style was changed in 2012 with no discussion can it be reverted as not established?. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously they are not minor. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

They seemed minor to me; as I said above, anything I felt to be contentious I actually marked as such (my Contributions list is full of such notes). I can be more careful in marking all such changes in the future. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, very little on WP is always/safely regarded as "minor", certainly not, say, moving commas around! Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I've checked a few now, & found one I disagreed with (which User:El C partly reverted) but most are fine. Iron Age is typical in having had mixed styles - this edit in late August BCE'd the lead but left the rest of the article untouched - someone should have a word with him. At Bronze Age Europe there were no BCEs, but someone had peppered one section with "B.C."s. But I thought the BC style at Amphictyonic League incorrect in terms of the history. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: the thing is that you think that any undiscussed change, no matter how long ago, can be reverted on the grounds that without discussion there can be no established change. I disagree on the grounds of WP:SILENCE which is why I raised the earlier discussion I mention above, WT:DATE#If an era style was changed in 2012 with no discussion can it be reverted as not established?. And how is the comment by User:EvergreenFir "very POV"? Or American. Doug Weller talk 06:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite think "no matter how long ago", but I do think for several years, depending I suppose on the busyness of the article. In fact, as the cases here show, very often drive-by edits leave a mixture of styles (I'm afraid all 3 of the reverts El_C mentions near the top did so - I've fixed them all). These are obviously more vulnerable to reversion. I detected in User:EvergreenFir's comment the belief that BCE/CE is obviously the right and natural style to use, and a clear whiff of the idea that anyone preferring BC/AD is probably some sort of Christian fundamentalist nutcase. This sort of mindset is extremely common among highly-educated Americans, including many WP editors - far more than anywhere else - and is the driving force behind all these drive-by changes. It is of course entirely contrary to WP's position, as set out at WP:ERA. It is also rather ignorant; people holding it should ask themselves why the biggest classical and archaeological museums in the US (MMA, Cleveland Museum of Art, Getty, LACMA) & UK (BM, English Heritage, National Trust) still use BC, and why (from Common Era) "In 2013 the Canadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History) in Ottawa, which had previously switched to BCE/CE, decided to change back to BC/AD in material intended for the public, while retaining BCE/CE in academic content.". The reason, as some institutions have explained, is that BC/AD is more widely understood and familiar; no doubt research has been done on this. We should ask ourselves: Is WP "intended for the public", or is it "academic content"? Maybe the answer varies between articles. But the main factor in deciding styles, imo, should be the choices of the main editors rather than drive-bys. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

1. "Museum of Civilization putting the ‘Christ’ back in history as BC and AD return", by Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press, National Post, 27 February, 2013

@Johnbod: I hope you stretched before making that leap. I don't think it's right or natural; it was a shift in anthropological and historical scholar's jargon to try to be neutral and not ethnocentric. It avoids centering all history around a Western cultural frame. Which, to me, is why it would be more appropriate to use AD/BC on Western articles. It also avoids the Christian-specific language underlying AD and BC. I find it appropriate to consider these ethnocentricities when studying history. At the same time, I don't begrudge people who use the system, just as I don't begrudge Japanese scholars who refer to European history in terms of Meiji (明治), Edo (江戸), Showa (昭和), or Heisei (平成) eras. As an encyclopedia, we need to balance between recognizing the common language used by English-speaking people and its Western roots, while also being sensitive to the fact that it may be insulting to non-Westerners to reference their history by a Western religious event. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: you don't need to keep pinging me about this — you've done it three times already, not to mention a comment on my talk page. Again, I have no objection. Please cease. El_C 16:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnbod BP, when used properly, is not an era style but a scientific method of dating - see Before Present. It should not come into the era style debate.

I have to agree with Johnbod's comments just above. I routinely, per WP:ERA, revert wholesale changes from from one ERA system to another, and when it happens that I'm reverting changes of BC/AD to BCE/CE, I've often been accused of having a Christian POV (for the record I'm not Christian). In any case the question of which nomenclature is best understood by our readership seems to be the right one (and I have to admit although I have a PHD, and like to think of myself as very well read, I nevertheless have to confess that the first time I encountered BCE/CE was when I first started editing WP fifteen years ago, and I remember being very confused at the time ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre accusations by User:Nocturnalnow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of an RfC on a Talk Page

• Noah Kraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BC1278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have COI as a paid consultant to Noah Kraft, the subject of a BLP. I posted an RfC at Talk:Noah Kraft and it was removed, apparently by DaRonPayne based on his comments toward the bottom of Talk:Noah Kraft#Request Edit that he was "not open to holding a vote until I've had an opportunity to post a rebuttal to the new points that you've raised." The editor also moved the discussion from the RfC into the previous section, a closed Request Edit so it appears as though the Request Edit already had a discussion about the proper use of a new primary source. It did not when the RfC was posted as a new section. Strangely, I have not been able to pinpoint the removal and move on Talk History. You can see the RfC as I posted it in History here: Special:Diff/914189294 When I made the Request Edit, it was a simple matter because I was only asking for removal of an unsourced contentious statement on a BLP. But DaRonPayne objected, so the Request Edit was closed with a recommendation by the reviewing editor for discussion amongst editors. Immediately afterwards, DaRonPayne added a new primary source to the article, so most of the Request Edit discussion about the lack of a source became moot.

I left notice on the section that I intended to start a new section about the remaining NPOV issue and whether use of the new primary source is proper. DaRonPayne asked for more time to do research. The editor has added a long series of interleaving replies to individual points in the closed Request Edit, against WP:TPO, making the closed Request Edit section especially unsuitable for gathering consensus amongst editors for a new issue. Finally, to compound he situation, DaRonPayne has added a series of vicious personal attacks against me in the closed Request Edit, such as accusing me of "scummy and unethical behavior that reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages" and accusations of "vote-rigging, before you attempt to do it again." I had already requested that the editor refrain from personal attacks on article Talk and instead, direct any complaints against me to COIN or Admins.

I'd ask that Admins intervene to review and restore the RfC (I believe it to be neutrally phrased) and to take the unusual step of removing the personal attacks against me in Talk, as his accusations are extremely slanderous and an attempt to sway the outcome of the consensus decision on content, and intimidate me, by maligning my professional reputation. I am notifying DaRonPayne on their Talk page of this report.BC1278 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 is attempting to jam through controversial changes to the page of his paying client, the subject of the page, without allowing any time for discussion of those changes. I'm completely open to having a poll, under a few conditions:

(1.) That BC1278 wait 48 hours for me to respond to his arguments

(2.) That BC1278 not be allowed to contact editors that have voted for his changes in the past, since could tarnish Misplaced Pages's public image, given BC1278's history of controversial tactics around votes.

(3.) That anyone voting on the change disclose if BC1278 has contacted them to vote on one of his suggested changes in the past, and if so, how many times.

(4.) That the poll be reworded to something acceptably neutral. As a paid editor, BC1278 should not have the ability to unilaterally determine the wording of the poll just because he was the first one to post it.

(5.) That there is disclosure that BC1278 has come under scrutiny from other Misplaced Pages editors and journalists for a pattern of controversial tactics around votes.

Note that BC1278 has materially misrepresented his history of changes to the page. (1.) The claim he objected to was not "unsourced", although it was updated with a newer source, (2.) The editor objected to BC1278's change because it was objectively controversial, not because of my involvement.

BC1278 exaggerates the difficulty of using the preceding discussion as a basis for gathering consensus, but in any event, that makes the need for a reply to the new claims that he raised all the more urgent so that editors have the context to evaluate this dispute. BC1278 has made several claims that I believe are false or misleading, and he shouldn't be allowed to logjam through a poll without any discussion, even if that's what his client would prefer.

I think that the caveats I have suggested are fairly reasonable and I'm happy to reword my statement about BC1278's past behavior to merely reflect what others have said about him, for example here: Special:Diff/845217397#Canvassing and here Special:Diff/843020422#Choice of editors to move your draft articles. DaRonPayne

Also note that BC1278 resorted directly to posting this here instead of taking it up on his Talk page, where I tried to have a discussion with him. DaRonPayne (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The HuffPo accusations against me were discussed at great length at AN and discredited. An Administrator uninvolved in the AN discussion summarized the consensus on the Administrative Closure Noticeboard as: “the article was written by someone who has no idea how Misplaced Pages works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. ." Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 28#Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#HuffPost article on WP COI editing COIN and AN found no violations. The accusations are immaterial to the severe disruptive editing at Talk:Noah Kraft or the proper process of an RfC for the Kraft article. BC1278 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can see why you linked to the summary instead of the full discussion. It's not flattering: Special:Diff/887985129#HuffPost article on WP COI editing DaRonPayne (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice how BC1278 never mentions the other two links to Misplaced Pages editors reprimanding him for his aggressive behavior and never denies the claim from the article that is most relevant here, namely that he has a history of controversial tactics around votes. Assuming the article is accurate on this narrow point, which BC1278 has never flatly disputed, allowing this sort of thing to go unremarked upon sets a precedent. Namely that it's fine for BC1278 to continue with his controversial tactics around votes. I think it's in Misplaced Pages's interest to mention this behavior prominently as a deterrent, and to prevent negative press coverage in the future. I suspect that most lay readers, and many Misplaced Pages editors, would perceive these tactics practice as unethical. It is possible to act unethically without technically violating Misplaced Pages policies, and it bears mention. DaRonPayne (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not reading this wall of text. But DaRonPayne per WP:TPO you should not remove someone else's talk page post. If some editor wants to post an RFC, do not remove it just because you don't like it. Let the RFC run its course. Whether you like it or not, other editors can solicit input through RFC, without getting anybody else's approval first. I haven't looked through the posts by BC1278. And I really don't care. They posted an RFC on a talk page, and it should have been allowed to run its course. You are, of course, welcome to take this whole issue to WP:ANEW for some kind of resolution. But do NOT remove another editor's talk page post. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Maile66 and other admins. DaRonPayne has responded to your instruction about removing the Talk post by posting his own entirely different RfC on the same issue at: Talk:Noah Kraft#RfC about use of YouTube video as source for lead and leaving my RfC from earlier today blanked. Special:Diff/914189294 His RfC contains personal attacks against me. It omits my entire RfC explanation from the new Discussion. He has left in all the more severe personal attacks in the previous Request Edit section and directed other editors to that section with links. We could move this discussion to WP:ANEW, as you suggested. But given the severity of the situation, including the very severe personal attacks in the previous section, I'd suggest an Admin at ANI correct the Talk page and DaRonPayne be given a formal warning about disruptive editing. This goes beyond edit warring. BC1278 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

BC1278 there's nothing stopping you from reopening your RfC, you're just as capable of doing that as I am. And you're asserting the claims about your editing history are unfair without actually responding to any of them. And I don't see where in the Misplaced Pages rules you have a God given right to run the only RfC on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRonPayne (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I also think it's fairly reprehensible that a paid editor is aggressively attempting to get admins to prevent a volunteer editor who disagrees with him from making edits on his client's page. BC1278: You're welcome to reopen the RfC and I won't stop you, but this heavy-handedness is not a good look. DaRonPayne (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• DaRonPayne's conduct at Talk:Noah Kraft (not just the first thread but the whole page) is very concerning, as are his repeated attempts to throw shade at BC above. – Levivich 01:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This editor has also severely personally attacked me on my User Talk page Special:Diff/914201300 and restored the attack twice after I deleted it. He was already cautioned by an Admin to stop. User talk:DaRonPayne#User talk pages His harassment of me on Talk:Noah Kraft and my User Talk Page has been escalating for several days. BC1278 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have made literally zero edits before today going back until August 23rd. What are you talking about? Also I stopped editing your page immediately after the Admin told me to stop. It seems like you're a paid editor trying to weaponize the fact that I'm a new editor against me in order to get me kicked off of your client's page. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And a quick update, I have reposted BC1278's RfC. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You placed it AFTER your RfC on the talk page and out of chronological order. He doesn't control an RfC. If you don't like the phrasing, you can always add another option or another phrasing. Buffs (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Requesting other admins here to have a look at the edit history of DaRonPayne, which seems to me to be almost a single-purpose POV account focused on Noah Kraft. Earlier in the year, he used the same tactics on FeldBum who had been editing the Noah Kraft article. FeldBum has since quit editing altogether. DaRonPayne went after FeldBum on their talk page and reported them at COI Noticeboard 1. I'd like other admins to look at this, but this looks to me like blockable harassment focusing on Noah Kraft. — Maile (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

FeldBum had an undisclosed conflict. He __admits__ that he had been hired by TWO of Kraft's companies for PR work, and he didn't mention it ANYWHERE. Why would you automatically side with the party that has a financial conflict in these disputes? Should I have not reported that? Did you even read the complaint? And he hasn't stopped editing altogether. He just stopped editing Kraft's page. Check his contributions, he has been quite prolific since February, which was when I made the complaint. Also, the only reason my account appears to be "almost a single-purpose" account is that I've faced an army of Kraft's paid associates and other people with disclosed but unspecified connections to Kraft lobbying to turn it into a PR piece (Talk:Noah Kraft#History of sockpuppeting, contributions by people with financial ties to Kraft, and contributions by brand new editors with disclosed but unspecified personal ties to Kraft). This is the COI equivalent of "stop hitting yourself." Seriously, read the FeldBum complaint instead of bringing it up as evidence of my "bias" without reading it. It's eye-opening. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if there were more than the two of you editors duking it out on the article talk page. Perhaps you should end the accusations and attacks because they are chasing away well-intentioned editors who are probably staying away from such a divisive atmosphere. Liz 02:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

That's reasonable and I'm happy to reword it. I do think the fact that BC1278 has been reprimanded by editors before is fair game, since he is a paid editor who has attracted considerable controversy from other editors. So I think that's important context for people coming across the page, but I'll try to make the language milder and more on-topic.DaRonPayne (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: I re-worded the relevant section to note BC1278's history of controversial tactics around votes but much more mildly worded. Please take a look, if you have a minute. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I posted a routine RfC for just purpose Special:Diff/914189294 and DaRonPayne deleted it. He moved the RfC discussion (about the use of a primary source) into a a previous Request Edit section that had already been closed. Then he started his own RfC on the same issue - incorporating a veiled personal attack into the actual RfC question, and not including any of the discussion from the deleted RfC. That is why we are here. Highly disruptive editing by DaRonPayne is indeed chasing away other editors. The deleted RfC should be restored and DaRonPayne cautioned to stop moving/deleting other editors' Talk posts and filling Talk with personal attacks. BC1278 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And BC1278 keeps bringing that up even though he refuses to restore his RfC himself, presumably so that he can continue playing the victim and trying to get me banned from interfering with his client's page. I've told him he can restore it and I won't stop him. I have also substantially modified the wording, but in a way that still points out that BC1278 has been involved with controversial tactics around voting and has been admonished by other editors in the past. That is fair game, AFAIK, for editors who don't have that context evaluating claims by an extremely aggressive paid editor with a history of controversy. DaRonPayne (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages shouldn't have two competing RfCs on the same exact topic. DaRonPayne, you need to take responsibility to undelete the RfC and RfC discussion you removed and get rid of the competing RfC and personal attacks you posted. I'm not getting into an edit war with you. BC1278 (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've reposted your RfC. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Requesting admins here take a look at the edit history of Noah Kraft's page, which appears to have been created by a PR firm and has been zealously interfered with by people with admitted conflicts since the page's creation. (Talk:Noah Kraft#History of sockpuppeting, contributions by people with financial ties to Kraft, and contributions by brand new editors with disclosed but unspecified personal ties to Kraft) DaRonPayne (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Just found this and it makes for some interesting reading: Special:PermaLink/887985129#HuffPost article on WP COI editing.

A few excerpts from the discussion that BC1278 omitted: "articles like this make us look ridiculous and that our official begrudging acceptance of disclosed paid editing is even more of a threat than undisclosed paid editing because it ruins our reputation when major media outlets runs stories like this." "There are no good decisions for us to make here only least awful ones." "Here we are the bureaucrats that allow Big Tech to whitewash their own articles." "Hi guy here who thinks you're right that UPE is worse. But do you understand why as a volunteer how your 700+ words are troubling and could be seen as WP:BLUDGEONing this conversation in contradiction of WP:PAYTALK."

And reading over this, BC1278's conclusion is that the article was COMPLETELY DISCREDITED and he paints it as if all of the admins who looked at it found no issues whatsoever with his conduct. I think the discussion speaks for itself, and the editors on Noah Kraft's page should be able to evaluate BC1278's arguments in the context of the controversy surrounding his tactics. All I ask is the ability to link to other editors comments on his practices. I don't think that counts as an attack. DaRonPayne (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant to the disruptive editing in Talk:Noah Kraft, but DaRonPayne's link above is to the second day of a 6-week discussion, before more serious investigation by admins. The full archived AN discussion is here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive308#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing.BC1278 (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This "full archived AN discussion" you've linked to here again has you referencing a "summary" of a prior discussion that doesn't actually link to that discussion. I, for one, am interested in reading the entire discussion, not just the summary by Swarm, which seems to have swept a lot of editors reservations about your conduct under the rug. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Diffs

For administrators gasping for the lack of appropriate diffs to actually look at, here are some:

• Special:Diff/882669102 — talk page refactoring to exclude signatures
• Special:Diff/882670341 — talk page refactoring to remove parts of comments
• Special:Diff/912029529 — edit request not placed into a section
• Special:Diff/914230527 — section headings
• Special:Diff/912032397 — objection to edit request placed ahead of it, unsigned
• Special:Diff/912205008 — breaking up someone else's comment to post the same thing over and over, see also the edit summary
• Special:Diff/914204122 — use of undo
• Special:Diff/902042721 — unsigned
• Special:Diff/914181770#RfC about use of YouTube video as primary source for lead — placement of RFC section
• Special:Diff/914200620 — blanking of the same, combining RFC discussion under preceding section
• Special:Diff/914233386 — placement of altered RFC
• Special:PermaLink/914257926#RfC about use of YouTube video as source for lead — The RFC right now

Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Re: Special:Diff/912029529, this was an inadvertent formatting error that I noticed and corrected within 15 minutes by adding a section header above the Request Edit. Special:Diff/912031161 BC1278 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick update, BC1278's RfC has been reposted. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

DaRonPayne reposted the RfC he deleted, but has left live the RfC he later created on the same issue (which had been his first solution after being told here he could not blank another editor's RfC) and placed it on top of the original RfC. Special:Diff/914345027 BC1278 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I've read through just about everything and DaRonPayne's behavior in the above diffs is atrocious and completely unnecessarily aggressive. Consistent refactoring of others' comments (even deleting whole sentences...practically paragraphs of others' remarks) is inherently disruptive behavior. Persistently adding comments to others' talk pages (Special:Diff/914204122) because "other people need know just how bad you are" (I paraphrase) is particularly heinous. Deleting an RfC, etc. are all underhanded techniques and are inherently uncivil. Claiming to have restored the RfC is also misleading...he's restored it below the one he started the next day. This means that, if you are looking at a list of RfCs, the link will go to the first one.

BC1278 is not "clean" in the matter, but appears to be trying to make a good faith effort to be a good editor and openly states his COI. Personally, I don't see a problem with that. Let an RfC pan out and see what people think. BC1278 seems largely content to let it pan out. I don't know who Noah Kraft is or who he hired/didn't hire. I don't particularly care. DaRonPayne, at this point, I'd call for a block of you and restoration of the original RfC in chronological order regardless of anything you don't like about BC1278. DaRonPayne, I recommend reading WP:BLUDGEON. Now, I'm off to weigh in on an RfC. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• The latest DaRonPayne abuse is to use his invalid dulpicate-topic RfC as a bargaining chip to get his way on a rewording of the lead. He says he will delete the RfC he improperly posted on the same subject as the RfC he deleted (then restored - but not in chronological order - under Admin pressure, so there are now two competing RfCs), but only if the specific proposal he prefers (one of two being discussed for a new lead) is adopted as a "compromise." Special:Diff/914473604 Otherwise, I suppose he's saying the chaos he has created by violating Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Multiple_RfCs_on_one_page and WP:TPO will continue. He will persist in actively breaking policy (3 days since he was warned here) unless he gets his way. BC1278 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• BC1278 is now actively misrepresenting what I said and should be reprimanded for his blatant dishonesty. I flat out said that I am willing to have the $50 million claim removed entirely from the article as a compromise if BC1278 is willing to stop trying to micro-manage and write the lead for the article for his client. In fact, I'm willing to completely abstain from any further editing on the article/Talk page if BC1278 agrees to do the same (and if Kraft does not retain other paid editors to influence the article going forward), and I think that would be the best course of action for all parties involved here. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• And update: Just closed my RfC as a show of good faith and to highlight that this is about BC1278 trying to turn the lead into a PR piece for his client. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Question I'm glad DaRon is backing down here and I've given my two cents over at Noah Kraft. However, I have a question for BC1278: how often do your requests for clients end up as RfCs? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep, just twice before (over about four years) for clients. And once for myself (unpaid) about the proper use of the above referenced HuffPo article about me in an article. In Noah Kraft, in normal circumstances, this question should have been easily resolved without an RfC. A new editor seemed to be improperly using a primary source for contentious material in BLP. A friendly consensus discussion or a BLP/Help should have been enough. But the Talk page evidenced highly disruptive editing and axe grinding by the editor. The primary source cited from YouTube popped up the same day (August 22, 2019, as the only content from a new YouTube account) after this editor noticed I was preparing a request edit on the subject of unsourced info in a sandbox User_talk:BC1278/sandbox/Noah_Kraft, and asked for time to "reply," suggesting to me someone closely involved in the subject matter. So it seemed to me that only a definitive decision by a cross-section of Misplaced Pages editors, in a format that was more tightly structured and not as easily disrupted, could resolve the issue of the use of the source with finality. It did not occur to me the editor would just delete the RfC.BC1278 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Involved IPs:

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

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

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

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

User:Shaggy12001

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

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

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

I've rev deleted the offensive edit summaries. Please report back if the warning has no effect. Liz 02:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

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

IP socking in edit wars

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

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

• against ,
• against .

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

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

Transphobic comments

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

User:James Cantor has called some trans women "autogynephilic MtF's" in an edit summary. And he thinks that's an acceptable thing to call people. See the discussion over on his talk page.

According to his bio he's worked with Ray Blanchard - the transphobe who coined the term autogynephilia.

I've explained to him that the term is highly insulting and degrading, and I've explained why:

The person who coined it is a transphobe, and the term refers to the insulting notion that being trans is merely a fetish.

He refuses to cease using this transphobic and uncivil language.

Is there an admin who'd be willing to intervene on this matter?

Thanks --Wickedterrier (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While the term is a passe relic, it's not inherently a slur. Insulting to trans folks, but unfortunately still a marginally accepted term in academia. It seems akin to Oriental to me. Not sure admin intervention is warranted here. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oriental is literally a slur. ~Swarm~ 16:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I am not in a position to question or refute that. My apologies. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In the US, yes. But not so in the UK where it is indeed often regarded as merely old-fashioned.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Counter-point - the UK is often, at its baseline bigote,d when it comes to people from East Asia; a relic of their colonial glory days no doubt. So you suggesting that the literal racial slur is just quaint where you come from is really just highlighting the awful views on the topic there. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a term that often appears in German academia, and there's even a well known group, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society), that is dedicated to near-east studies (particularly Ancient Egypt and Syria). Now, I'm not a colonialism expert, but I don't recall the Germans having a colonial empire in Asia (or much of anywhere, as, to quote Blackadder, it consisted of "a small sausage factory in Tanganyika"). The word "Orient" doesn't have a universal meaning, either, as you might note that for Germans it refers not to East Asia, but the Middle-East. Words that are offensive in one place, and time are not in another. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Holy hell, this shouldn't need to be said, but please stop trying to argue caveats to a slur being a slur. It's really not necessary, nor a particularly impressive look. Misplaced Pages is an international melting pot, so "it's not a slur in my country" is not an excuse for using slurs. ~Swarm~ 01:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Trans topics used to be under discretionary sanctions. That was superseded by the Gamergate discretionary sanctions, which is about any "gender-related dispute or controversy". This is a bit more restrictive than the old discretionary sanctions, but it sounds like this may be a "dispute or controversy". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not too acquainted with the concept of autogynephilia, but I can say that the term "MtF" is still used in scholarly publications although it is perhaps on the way out in favor of better terminology. But I wouldn't say that MtF, in itself, is transphobic. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 16:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • So you're not acquainted with it, but perhaps you should be before weighing in. The term "autogynephile" is used to insult trans women and cast aspersions that their motivation for transitioning is sexual. This is literally posting insults on the pages of living people. rspεεr (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I prefer full disclosure of my knowledge level while commenting on the portion that I am familiar with. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 17:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why we tolerate Cantor editing articles on this subject, he is here to advocate for a POV that the trans community find deeply offensive, and is part of the group that is responsible for that term, so not just some disinterested expert. Guy (help!) 16:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• The aforenoted writers are correct in that my language is exactly in line with professional standards. Extremists among activists are entitled to disagree, of course, but that is neither here nor there for WP. I have no idea how to judge what language is going into or out of fashion: Changes among professionals and RSs are less influenced by activists, but the activists are more apparent in social media and google searches. As I say, activists are free to disagree with me, but yelling "transphobe" anyone who disagrees is what is uncivil. All of this is quite reminiscent of the Sexology ArbCom case:
  

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology

My views now are as they were then: Folks are free to their activism, but not to bring it to WP.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Exactly in line with professional standards"... except it's not? It's not accepted in the trans community and is widely considered a slur (FYI- some adult language in that link)... and just plain incorrect. Guy is right. Im senseing a form of WP:COI here- this is someone who is involved with this term and should not be editing articles regarding gender. Your right James, folks are free to activism- but you should really keep yours off of Misplaced Pages. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's certainly not "in line with professional standards". And to consider anyone who says otherwise an "extremist" is ridiculous. I don't personally think the term is top-tier offensive where its use is WP:ZT, but it's certainly not benign. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Recent examples of other professionals in my field include (one of whom is herself an openly autogynephilic transwoman):

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110016

https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1016-9040/a000276?journalCode=epp

Posting examples of activists promoting their views does not discount anything I said. Indeed, it exemplifies what I said.— James Cantor (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

James Cantor I do no think that the opinion of one self reported " autogynephilic" transwoman is proof of anything. The numbers of "self hating" (choose your group) are legion, and the literature and popular culture are full of transwomen who subsequently regret their decision, albeit too late..post surgery. Not all transwomen can successfully transition, and find their dream going up in smoke, but one or two does not speak for all and does not justify using a term that the group feels is a slur. An analogy perhaps is the "N" word, used freely without opprobrium or demeanment amongst (some) blacks, it is a vicious slur when used by someone who has not had to bear the harm done by that slur. The same with the word queer. It is inappropriate and considered a slur for "streights" to use the word in describing a gay, but it is not so considered when gays use it within their own community and context. I will acknowledge that perhaps some gays might object to the word, regardless it's source. The same can be said for many labels.Oldperson (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No, but it does show you that this is widely considered a slur and you ought not to use it. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The contextual use of "autogynephilic" in the literature is a reference to what the subject finds erotic. Given the controversy, I see no reason the use of the word should be tolerated outside, possibly, of this specific academic context. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi James. Just to be very clear - I didn't confront you over using "autogynephile" in an academic context. Plaster it all over academic articles if you like (assuming the topic ban doesn't happen). But just don't call people autogynephiles in your own voice (ideally anywhere, but Misplaced Pages admins are unlikely to do anything about your behavior outside of Misplaced Pages). Edit summaries are not an academic context and you will get called on your bullshit by "activists" (although that's another label I reject - I'm merely asking you to be polite). While your friend in academia may be fine with the term, most trans women (the correct spelling is "trans women") aren't and find it to be rather insulting - and you seem to know that already. --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no WP valid statement here for me to respond to, and I am not aware of Wickedterrier having any power to tell me what to do off-WP. I'd point out to anyone, however, that there are many effective ways to convince people to change their behaviour, but none of them is in this that post.— James Cantor (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support t-ban from gender issues, broadly construed - if the person has a CoI involving having disclosed working with well known transphobes and uses transphobic language on their user page, they should be encouraged to edit some other part of the encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• That view is not consistent either with WP:COI or with WP:Expert. It is indistinguishable from WP:IDONTLIKEIT.— James Cantor (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Being a collaborator with transphobes and then making transphobic statments in user space seems to put this discussion outside the boundaries of WP:EXPERT suggest WP:PROFRINGE may be a more apropos policy here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• That argument is circular. That you see them as transphobes is the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The RSs say what they say.— James Cantor (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support topic ban James clearly sees no problem with their psuedoscientific views and refuses to stop editing in areas where they are clearly conflicted. Obligatory: I'm not a admin, so sorry if I'm not supposed to voice my support on topic bans. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• What did I say anywhere that was pseudoscience rather than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Please be specific.— James Cantor (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• ​Autogynephilia is psuedoscience. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps you might introduce that claim to the WP page on the topic. Neither the RSs nor the consensus of editors there appear to agree with you. There isn't much that can be added by just more WP:IDONTLIKEIT.— James Cantor (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban A single edit is not enough to topic ban for me, and I won't support unless folks can show Cantor has a pattern of disruptive editing in gender areas. But the comment was pretty clearly a slur, Cantor wasn't just discussing autogynephilia, they clearly used it to demean activists, by dismissing them as "autogynephilic MtF's". That is disruptive editing. Cantor should be formally warned to be careful in the very tense area of gender editing, and that if we have to make it to ANI again, there will be a topic ban. Captain Eek ⚓ 18:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, I wasn't dismissing or demeaning anyone. Indeed, I appear widely in the media supporting autogynephilic transfolks. Rather, I was saying the activists are not a representative sample of the people they represent.— James Cantor (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• James, your clearly fighting a losing battle here. Why not just agree to stop using the word on Misplaced Pages? TheAwesomeHwyh 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Check your counting. Because the actual editing policies permit it and accurately reflecting the RSs require it. Also, I would be a poor scientist if I changed my thinking due to social pressure rather than the facts of a situation. Indeed, my own notability has exactly come from departing from the crowd when that's where the evidence pointed.— James Cantor (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly you aren't here to build an encyclopedia- but merely to push psuedoscientific garbage on all of us. You're ignoring the facts and only only making me support a topic ban even more, James. We've spent more than enough time dealing with your garbage, now it's time to take it to the landfill. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll WP:AGF here, I believe that Cantor was well meaning, and that perhaps I misread his comment. While autogynephilia has long been used to dismiss trans folks, I don't think it should be seen as automatically negative, and in rereading the comment, don't think Cantor meant it to be disparaging. @TheAwesomeHwyh: Please remember to be civil btw. Captain Eek ⚓ 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. Perhaps I got too caught up in the heat of the moment. I'll step back now. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban - Doesn't seem severe enough to warrant that. Also, per Captain Eek. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 18:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Cantor has a conflict of interest as a sexologist who wants trans women's identity to fall under the purview of sexology (which is offensive to trans women like me, and against the WPATH standards of care). WP:Expert is not a guideline that applies because he is not a credible expert on gender; "autogynephilia" is a discredited fringe view. But the worst part is that he has digging in that he should be allowed to edit demeaning terminology onto trans women's biographical pages. What possible good could come from encouraging him to keep editing on this topic and being subtler about it? rspεεr (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Similarly transparent: WP:Expert doesn't apply because he's not a credible expert, and he's not a credible expert because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.— James Cantor (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban to me, the real problem here is a few editors overstating their case in an attempt to silence someone who has opinions they don't like. I have little sympathy for the thought police and I hope that they fail. Lepricavark (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• What ever happened to WP:AGF? Calling your peers the "thought police" is hardly constructive. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• AGF went out the window when several editors decided that tarring James Cantor with labels and attempting to silence him was easier than having a calm, adult-level discussion. I make no apologies for calling out such behavior, even if it bothers one of the guilty parties. Disagreements are, and always will be, a part of this collaborative project, but it is hardly collaborative or constructive to try to win an argument with tars and feathers. There are few things more obnoxious than a person who is so convinced that he is right that he cannot permit others to speak. Lepricavark (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think legitimate evidence has been presented that this Cantor is presenting fringe vs just research that others don't like. I agree that we should make reasonable efforts to avoid offense but at the same time Cantor wasn't talking about anyone here. If insulting people not involved with Misplaced Pages (the activists in this case) is a bad thing then we need to be careful when ever someone calls the subject of Misplaced Pages BLP a "misogynist asshat". Springee (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Folks are free to their activism, but not to bring it to WP. James Cantor - that's problem is that people don't want to be described that way, and your insistence that you can use a term because you use it in your subfield of study amounts to activism, and problematic activism. You're willing to risk a topic-ban over your right to use a term. That's activism.

  We're a collaborative project. We need to be able to work together. Or you can choose not to work collaboratively, but if that's the case, then maybe Misplaced Pages isn't the place for you. Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. If James can't learn to accept others opinions then he really isn't cut out to be a Misplaced Pages editor. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Your comment suggests you have not reviewed the relevant page(s). Anyone reviewing the edit history of https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blanchard%27s_transsexualism_typology&action=history] will see extremely collaborative work. What little conflict there was was resolved easily...and that the editor making this ANI entry has had no involvement in the pages at all. Their only involvement is this conflict.— James Cantor (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but I seem to recall that you have a long history of agenda-driven conflict and were subject to an iban once before. So there's a pattern here. Guettarda (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is little I can say to a vague recollection. If this is a reference to the ArbCom Sexology case, the result did include an interaction ban between me and user:Jokestress; however, reading the ArbCom decision shows that all findings faulted her behavior, not mine, and topic banned her, not me. That is, the interaction ban was not a reflection of my behavior, but hers. If this were not the situation begin recalled, I am open to hearing what was.— James Cantor (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If James can't learn to accept others opinions then he really isn't cut out to be a Misplaced Pages editor - I'm stunned by the lack of self-awareness, TheAwesomeHwyh. You're trying to ban an editor from a topic area because you can't accept his opinion, whilst (hypocritically) complaining that they won't accept your opinion. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand me- I don't expect them to change their entire opinion, but at least be flexible in avoiding using a term some have deemed to be offensive. I think its best for me to just step back from this conversation at this point. Peace, TheAwesomeHwyh 20:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• • When I look at your contributions, I see many contentious edits to contentious topics of gender identity, from a very particular point of view. I see dismissals of completely typical trans people as "activists", even ones as unremarkable as me. You sure work the word "activists" in a lot. You are pushing a political view, not one that can be justified by your credentials in sexology. rspεεr (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't I use the word "activist" any more or less often than I believe it applies. If there are edits based on non-RS and non-WP policy reasons, you have not cited them.— James Cantor (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, per Springee. Paul August ☎ 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban - having the same though as Lepricavark. This is an attempt at silencing. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban The evidence is not at all convincing that a topic ban is necessary in this instance. Gender and other sexology subjects are topic areas that attract drama and disagreements and to be honest probably are the most difficult editing area on Misplaced Pages, so it is not surprising James Cantor has found conflict. My experience is that James Cantor has a POV but he is quite flexible and reasonable and edits within policy and guidelines. It is easy to jump the gun and incorrectly form an opinion that James Cantor is a problematic COI editor by not considering these facts, so I would suggest impartial editors supporting a topic ban not go with their initial instincts but to consider the context of the editing environment James Cantor is editing in. He is a mainstream and valuable editor, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban: I'm rather bewildered at how a scientist, even in a controversial field, can be berated for using the terminology of his field. Anyway, for the moment, I don't believe a pattern has yet been established that would be sufficient to sustain any action; and, moreover, I agree wholly with Mr rnddude. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree withJames Cantor but I don't agree. in principle, with banning unless there is evidence of vandalism and bad faith, however James should fully disclose his professional association and opinion with his editing. If we start banning people because we don't like them, we disagree, we feel they are misled, misconceived, delusional or whatever where will we end up? How does it go? "I don't like what you say, but will defend to my death your right to say it? Admittedly a little over the top, after all we don't have the right to cry fire in a crowded theater. How about taking a deep breath and giving it a break James? A piece of advice I will take myself, elsewheres. However a perceived slur is none the less a slur. You (third person) may not believe the word is a slur or conveys negativity, but the recipient does and that is what counts. Words wound, more important words can and do lead to action (adverse and negative), private, public and politicalOldperson (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what could be a better such disclosure than my editing under my real world name, my identifying my profession on my userpage, and my demonstrated and sustained willingness to self-censor, such as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3AJames_Cantor&type=revision&diff=269470346&oldid=267136394 . As shown in the already linked Sexology ArbCom case, has been other editors, not I, unwilling to self-regulate.— James Cantor (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose with caveats There's only one potentially problematic edit summary, and there is not enough of a conflict here for me to support a topic ban. That being said, the article alone is particularly potentially controversial, and I think a soft warning - maybe more of a reminder - is merited that any offensive POV-pushing would merit a topic ban due to the sanctions on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per various above opposes. Support seems largely focused on "I don't like the term 'autogynephilic'" and describing it as a term used in pseudoscience in order to dismiss opposing opinions. Given the documentation by the NIH, it doesn't seem the term is outside standard usage nor should its usage be considered so offensive as to ban/block anyone who uses it even once. "I'm offended" is a horrific rationale for a TBAN or a block. Buffs (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  BuffsYour NIH link says SOME not all transsexuals are motivated by Autogynephilia. IfJames Cantor or any other editor is defining MtF transsexuals as Autogynephiliacs then some sanction is called for, or at least an edit correction.Oldperson (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  I never said that trans people are all motivated by autogynephilia. My point is that the word itself is not automatically inappropriate nor should any such opinions result in such exclusion via "I'm offended". Buffs (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  Cantor's agenda against trans women goes beyond the use of a single word, although the word reveals a lot about which fringe agenda in particular he is pushing. Look at how consistently he's calling trans women "activists" for simply defending their identity. And let's get away from the topic of how many trans women are "motivated by autogynephilia"; it's not a valid concept, it's just an accusation. The accusation causes more than just offense; it causes trans women to be seen as perverts and excluded from things. Anyway, I expect that Cantor is not going to realistically face any sanctions now given how this discussion has gone, but let's keep in mind the view he's pushing (as his exclusive purpose for editing Misplaced Pages) for when this comes up again. rspεεr (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• What I hear this to mean is that "I am not going to AGF not matter what any ANI consensus says." The only options are that the consensus is correct when it agreea with me or the consensus is wrong. That Repper themself needs to alter their approach appears not to be an option. I'm not sure what to do with that.— James Cantor (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban per Literaturegeek, Buffs, and others. The enthusiasm of some for a topic ban is way beyond what is warranted, given the only offense so far is a single edit summary. Everything else is vague unsupported accusations of transphobia and pseudoscience. He has never tried to use the term to refer to a specific individual, and I have no reason to think he will. At most, I think what he should take away from this is that the social environment has changed and he should be careful about how he uses this term. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Editors addressed chilling effect aspects with regard to language on transgender topics at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate. And considering that the terminology discussed there wasn't enough for a consensus on restricting language on talk pages, I don't see how Cantor should be reprimanded for, via an edit summary, using terminology used in the fields of psychology and sexology. To say he can't use this language would impair talk page space for similar reasons noted in the aforementioned Arbitration case about limiting language. Like I stated before on autogynephilia, "WP:Fringe currently states, 'In Misplaced Pages parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.' With regard to studying the causes of transsexuality, I'm not sure that I would call Blanchard's typology fringe. The causes of transsexuality are not well understood; there is no general agreement about what causes it or even what doesn't cause it (except perhaps that rearing doesn't influence a person's true gender identity), and a number of sexologists and other researchers support Blanchard's typology. But, yeah, Blanchard's typology is controversial in the transgender community (although there are some transgender women who support the typology)." Furthermore, autogynephilia is in the DSM-5. That stated, Cantor does have a WP:COI when it comes to the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article, as also noted on the article's talk page, so some might feel that he should not edit the article (and other articles where he has a COI) directly. But that's another matter. If Cantor engages in problematic editing due to his COI, that can always be handled. The above case is not problematic editing due to his COI. It's not problematic editing by any Misplaced Pages standard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. This is just an attempt to silence editors who don't think/speak/behave by the rules of transgender activism (which is that any comment can be deemed transphobic). The only fault I see in User:James Cantor's summary is the word "most". If I were to write such a summary, I would have used "some " instead. Autogynephilia is a recognized dysfunction "defined as a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female" (author: Lawrence A.A., also available at NCBI). The term "TERF" is considered a slur and offensive by those who are tagged with it ... yet Misplaced Pages has a TERF article that no one to my knowledge has objected to. Misplaced Pages, however, does not have a stand-alone article for Autogynephilia. I wonder why. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Not editor ban. I agree with RSpeer and Buffs. The use of the word autogynephilia appears to be harmful and leads to adverse actions. I would shy away from Blanchard as a source. His opinion is not at all unanimous or even consensus. He is in fact binary. His opinion is obviously based on a belief that men are attracted to women exclusively and vice versa as he has only two classes of transgendered: homosexuals and autogynephiliacs. He does not take into consideration the Kinsey scale of human sexuality, or the possibility that many people are just born different. There is also much about human biology and genetics, not to mention psychology that we don't know and are still learning,such as markers on the chromosone. Admittedly there are post operative autogynephiliacs who discover, too late and to their chagin, that they "can't pass" and aren't accepted. It happens and you see them time to time to time in the news, but I take rspeer word that "autogynephilia" is a slur and should not be use, even though some use the word to describe themselves. That argument doesn't work because some blacks,especially rap artists, use the "N" word does not mean that whites can use it. People whowould use the word in publicly available sources like WP are using a credible source to advance a troublesome agenda. No different from using other harmful words.Oldperson (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure how to react to a series of WP-irrelevant declarations. "I would shy away from Blanchard" is not how WP:RS works, "leads to adverse actions" is not how WP:V works, etc.— James Cantor (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Blanchard is obviously bias or ignorant,despite his "credentials" and thus his opinions are tainted, thus not a RS. despite his so called credentials. Despite the attempts on the part of editors to sound professional and neutral. There is no neutral ground on subjects such as transgender, TERF, racism, religion, politics. (I can make an exception, in some isnstances for politics though). An editors bias, pro or con,is evident from their comments. A person is either accepting or rejecting. Those that accept are philic (coining a word?), those that reject are, for the lack of a better word, phobic. The phobics are obviously very adept at using the policies and guidance of WP to present a persona/position that is academic or neutral. But no one is fooled. The emperor is naked is a quite appropriate analogy, and so is a stuck pig squealsOldperson (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, these opinions are just as irrelevant to any WP editing policy.— James Cantor (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both topic ban and editor ban: this is nothing but a blatant attempt by a small group of editors to silence an editor who has dared to express views they disagree with, and, as Lepricavark wrote above, "There are few things more obnoxious than a person who is so convinced that he is right that he cannot permit others to speak". - Tom | Thomas.W 13:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - topic, editor, whatever - seems like a thought policing exercise. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any ban - Best we not let political correctness rule the day. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: We can't legislate against people using technical terms on their own usertalk. We can't legislate against people having opinions we don't like, or against expressing those opinions on their own talkpages or in edit summaries. If there is a content dispute, discuss it on articletalk and seek a consensus resolution among interested editors using RS. If there is a conversation on someone's usertalk that someone else finds bothersome, that someone else should either leave the conversation or stay off the person's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi

Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have chosen the title of this section to echo this ANI thread from seven years ago, because (after the end of a long period of low activity) absolutely nothing has changed. Here is a selection of diffs from the last six weeks (all but one from the last month):

• The discussion here
• The discussion here
• (which is in response to this)
• (which is in response to this)
• (which is in response to this)

They illustrate the general pattern of hyper-aggressive, personalized remarks and widespread assumptions of bad faith, usually as the opening gambit in a discussion; but they are not comprehensive. Possibly, Deacon Vorbis or DePiep may want to add further examples.

Given the longstanding pattern of behavior in the face of unambiguous feedback from many different users about its inappropriateness, I request the user be blocked for a duration TBD. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Having also encountered this user, both directly and while patrolling changes within Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Elements, I will post some diffs as well.

• - after I made a terminology mistake. They were correct in regards to the content concerned, but this has an aura of assuming bad faith; they also linked one of my edits out of context, seemingly making a hasty generalization.
• - partially struck after a discussion; this one was resolved civilly, though.
• - didn't look necessary, and was called out as such. Double sharp was more involved in this exchange, so they can throw in their two cents if they'd like.
• - inappropriate use of rollback; this is a content dispute, and thus contravenes WP:ROLLBACKUSE.
• - deletionist paroxysms? AfD is not a war zone, even when one disagrees with consensus.
• - another example of what JBL describes
• - archived in this diff was a dispute with DePiep at WT:ELEM (exhibiting behavior consistent with this pattern).
• - clearly WP:SHOUTING, and could be interpreted as a personal attack. The title is also wholly inappropriate for a talk page thread.

I find that their comments are often correct in reference to the content concerned, but this attitude is at best non-productive and quite often egregiously violates WP:CIVIL. Even though I try to distance myself from these disputes, and not get involved in heated arguments with uncivil remarks or edit wars, I find it difficult to stay focused solely on content when working with this user. Although in my experiences the content issues were resolved, and I have seen them strike or neutrally elaborate on some comments, this ongoing pattern is evident. Nobody should be exempt from WP:CIVIL, no matter how knowledgeable and/or experienced they may be. I'd support a block (length TBD) per this ongoing pattern, also noting that it stirs up and distracts the communities at WP:WPMATH and WP:ELEM. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Involved Comment. Sorry I haven't been able to comment until now, but I've been doing other stuff all day. I don't think there's much to be gained by piling on a bunch more examples, but I guess it's at least worth mentioning the first interaction with IM that I can remember, which was at Talk:Square root#3 • 3, where what I was doing was called "trash". And even though I was missing something valid, I was expected to intuit what Incnis Mrsi was thinking. And then, when I finally got a full explanation out of him, it was in a very condescending manner. I think this serves as a good example of the root issues, which are not only incivility, but also either an inability or unwillingness on IM's part to communicate clearly. Part of this is, I'm sure, due to English not being their native language, but that's not the whole story. Anyway, the point is, that for me at least, this whole brew of incivility, condescension, poor communication, etc. makes it extremely frustrating to try to resolve any conflicts with IM (which for me, have been happening more frequently lately). So I find myself just disengaging instead (I admit I'm not the best at handling incivility). I don't really know the best way forward here, but this has been an ongoing problem (wider than I had realized than just with myself). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  The “disengaging” thing is obviously insincere:

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Duodecimal/Archive_1&action=history
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Duodecimal&action=history&offset=20190827

  Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  BTW I admit substandard communication in the 3 • 3 incident. Unfortunally Deacon_Vorbis choose to reciprocate with bashing me over various unrelated pretexts, down to manual talk archival. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  This reply by I.M. may catch some tu quoque flies, but does not address the complaints. Let alone nullify the complaints. Let me rephrase this example for clarity, in my own words: here Incnis Mrsi started an "RfC" by shouting a title, out of format and out of basic process. First sentence by I.M. said "The user Deacon Vorbis wages an edit war over it." Then follows "we see the RfC sabotaged by Deacon_Vorbis", "I defer to any solution by the “chemical community” which will deter wrecking and censorship ". "Is this the guideline against calling the present situation “edit warring”?" (meanwhile, when being pointed to WP:RFCBRIEF policy replying "The statement proper occupies one – it is brief"). In that same thread, it occurs to me that Deacon Vorbis and other editors were replying restrained while politely and helpfully to I.M., including clear warnings & suggestions. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  The RfC was valid. I’ll restart it when made fixes for {{chem2}}, but currently can’t devote much effort to it because of requirements IRL. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  That is not the issue, Incnis Mrsi (nor is that validness an established fact btw). The issue is your attitude wrt other editors and posts in that thread. This is ANI, this is about you. You are evading any response to the serious complaints made against you. Tells that you do not grasp the issue, and so no improvement can be expected. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  A correct statement is "there is a valid issue about which one could hold an RfC". The actual RfC question that was posed was obviously completely inappropriate; but that's true of so much of IM's conduct that it's not surprising that IM doesn't recognize it. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  @DePiep: which response do want to see? Certainly I am under a charged cloud because of my neglect of the civility standard, but do you really expect me to bow in front of those eager to strip me of editing privileges? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by User:DePiep

Recently I had had some strong interactions with User:Incnis Mrsi (IM), starting with WT:ELEMENTS topics (ComplexRational mentioned the same above). These were my initiating reverts; I note that three times I invited IM to discuss the change or get consensus:

This resulted in this WT:ELEMENTS thread (started Aug 13; all posts in there):

The thread illustrates the issue at hand: in between content arguments there are personal attacks, personal judgements on editors ("Who can be offended by "), casting aspersions ("not far from WP:OWN") and accusing editors of incompetence, judgemental replies ("Where in the hell is it currently relevant?"). I assume all these are covered under "incivility" per OP complaint/section title. None are content-aimed or helping wikipedia.

When called out on such an accusation, the replies are evasive and adding more indirect accusations (see this subthread re their "not far from WP:OWN"-accusation: not substantiating, not withdrawing, but repeating and even hiding the challenge from public view. Then starting a new thread #Is_the_kettle_black?, adding an indirect accusation once more also in the es for publicity effect).

Also there is much deviation from content-based issues: When asked for clarification, no substance follows but deviation instead (e.g. "DePiep opposes it… but for which reason?" reply DePiep: "Those reasons are in my post above."; and here writing "moron's way" as an argument about work people have done here).

Of course we are supposed to ignore disruptive deviations and concentrate on content only. That would mean in a discussion: 1. mentally strike out their uncivilities, 2. reconstruct the remaining phrase into sense, 3. explain to other editors what the useful part is, and 4. reply to the remaining content-only post, (repeat 1-4 with follow up posts). That is too much asked of other editors: IM should not divert into incivilities in the first place. Even worse, diversions & incivilities prevents IM themselves to build a to-the-point reply, sound reasoning & cooperation seeking (for example, note how IM ends up re WP:CONSENSUS here).

Above it was discussed if it could be lack of understanding English by IM I reject that explanation. So far, I have met little or no spelling errors, wiki-techiques used are experienced (like applying templates). Then, their uncivil accusations and smears are smartly accompanied by an insurance escape and indirectness: "not far from WP:OWN", "... expects assistance in edit-warring?". I claim that IM understands very well what they are doing. Given the effects I mentioned above (distracting other editors, into chasing them away from constructive cooperation) IM cannot claim WP:INCOMPETENT as an excuse. The damage to other editors' contributions & discussions is too disruptive and, as WP:COMPETENCE points out, incompetence is no excuse for bad faith.

It must stop. IM is invited to understand the issue & policies they were referred to or even referred to themselves. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If development of {{chem2}} resulted in moron-grade typesetting—namely, trailing subscripts like in CO₂ not protected from wrapping—then what’s wrong about referring to this quality by such possessive? Please, don’t permit to shut up those who detracts incompetence under tangential pretexts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(You wrote: "moron<br>'s way" (italics in source) . A moron is a person, so you were referring negatively to a person (an editor). You could have written "moronic way" instead. Still, overall, "moron(ic)" is a derogative judgemental qualification, not helpful in improving the wikipedia.

Anyway, glad you can agree with the other complaints in my post. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I happened to be scrolling through ANI and noticed this section. Although it has no bearing on this discussion here, I'll note Incnis has recently been given conduct warnings on the Simple English Misplaced Pages and Meta-Wiki by myself. I do believe this is a serious issue, and I'm disheartened about their blatant incivility on multiple projects. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  Although it has no bearing on this discussion here Actually, I disagree: I think it is very helpful for establishing just how widespread and consistent the problematic behavior is. Similarly, IM is helpfully providing further illustrations by their edits (and edit summaries) in the present discussion. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think there is a problem with the attitude of this editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC).

  Due to this? Still no reply, by the way. Yes my civility is (generally) substandard, but are all my detractors honestly motivated by improvement of Misplaced Pages? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  re: "Still no reply" you complain? Maybe that is because Xxanthippe followed your 'advice' to Go elsewhere and did not return for an answer. One more explicit example of I.M. literally chasing editors away. -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

Where is a trouble? Xxanthippe has nothing to bring to talk:Dirac adjoint, but I resolved a problem with another editor without (one else)’s assistance. Did anybody bully Xxanthippe away of the article or its talk? Rather in reverse, if anything of the sort. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The trouble is, IM, that you wrote to an editor to Go elsewhere. On top of that, another trouble is that you don't get that as problematic behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

What namely was problematic—on my part—in the incident above? Removal of a posting in the namespace 1 is a bad practice, making a confusing edit summary “No OR please” was worse than merely removal, and consequently I asked the editor not to use Twinkle in such venues. The meaning is clear. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

re "What namely was problematic—on my part—in the incident above?" — 1. You wrote Go elsewhere. 2. You do not understand that is problematic. 3. Go fuck yourself. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Concluding

• In light of the discussion above, I concretely request that IM be blocked indefinitely until they are able to demonstrate understanding of WP:Civility and the numerous ways that they are in violation of it, and credibly commit to changing those behaviors. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Usually it is not a good idea to indefinitely block on behavioral issues someone who has been around for 13 years, made 11K edits, and has never been blocked before.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  Usually, editors with that level of experience are not chronically and grossly uncivil. (Separately, though not relevant to this discussion: your description of IM's tenure is very misleading, since they have only avoided being blocked for precisely the same issue by agreeing to take a 2-month break from editing in 2012, and were minimally active for 5 years beginning April 2014.) --JBL (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  I.M. even in this ANI does not get the issue. So a block is in place (because otherwise, with no understanding or change of concept by I.M., no change of behaviour will occur). The 2012 ANI post re I.M., from which this one took its name!, may be relevent to admins. Length of block is up to others. In case of reoccurrence we will meet here at ANI again.-DePiep (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

3rd party talk section blanking

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

Dear administrators, please restore https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&diff=914361234&oldid=914360738 thank you for your kind consideration of this request. EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to have waited for Jehochman to respond before bringing it here? El_C 03:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

How long would you wait if he had done it to you? EllenCT (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been addressed on my talk page. It makes no sense to come here before attempting direct discussion, especially when direct discussion is requested in the edit you have disputed. Thank you. Jehochman 07:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• That was a poor move on Jehochman’s part. I think there’s still something to be addressed via discussion here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 08:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What’s going on at that user talk page is not right. Nevertheless, I undid my disputed edit because I’m going to be offline for most of the day today and don’t have time to discuss it further until possibly tonight or tomorrow. Jehochman 09:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring it. I hope she answers. EllenCT (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry for troubling you. Everything is now in good order. Jehochman 10:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping phone vandal.

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

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

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

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

Genre warring on Heartbreak on Hold article

The new user Iwannasingmysongtoo continues to add R&B in the infobox of Heartbreak on Hold, sourcing it with an italian blog's article . Warned. Blueberry72 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the behavior, I'm pretty sure this is LTA. I've filed an SPI. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I blocked for 48h, but looks like a sock indeed, only edit-warring and no useful contribution,--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Now confirmed as a sock and CU blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Here are some recent diffs:

• - this is against consensus, and is an incomplete copy, paste, subtract 1 from unbihexium
• - WP:OR
• - more WP:OR
• - even more WP:OR and unsourced speculation

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

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

Disruptive edits by IPs

I've been having problems with a few IPs (probably the same person) inserting line-breaks into locations in Infoboxes, making them into a sort of address format. This had been done to a couple dozen pages, some many times over: I had explained several times in edit summaries that it's an inappropriate format and also sent a warning to the Talk page of one of the IPs, but they're apparently ignoring me. A temporary page protection had been placed on one of the pages worst affected, but once that had expired, they again returned to doing the same edits.

These are the IPs that had been used:

• 2405:204:8183:B410:0:0:1D93:C8A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4041:614:ADAD:D45E:C635:BD32:D524 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:204:8189:43BD:0:0:1D53:18A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2402:8100:203B:D39:0:0:519:913A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.34.87.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would a range block be appropriate here?
Alivardi (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

They're all from the same ISP, but that's a impractically large range of IPv6 addrs to block for one person. creffett (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say a temporary range block. Though I don't know if it would be much of an issue either way, since they seem to be the only person making edits from these IPs. Then again, I may have just misunderstood how the blocks work.
Alivardi (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The 2402 IPv6 address is a cellular provider and not the same as the other IPs. Rangeblocks operate on addresses which share the leftmost values in common. So "2405:204:8183:xxx" and "2405:204:8189:xxx" are provisioned together by the ISP as a /36 block: 2^92-1 addresses in this block. The "2409" address is a completely different /36 block, and "2402" is a /48 block: 2^80-1 more addresses in this block. We'll take these massive numbers with a grain of salt, because each individual customer may be assigned a /64, but still, these are large swathes of address space, and not contiguous, so the collateral damage is a denial of service to perhaps everyone who uses this ISP in Gujarat. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Damn. Point taken. Any ideas for an alternative solution?
Alivardi (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

An edit filter? -- 2001:16B8:1E2E:5700:C51F:E800:7F3D:5D42 (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If it works. I'm not really to familiar with it. Honestly, I'm just getting tired of dealing with this. I've been doing multiple reversions a day for over a week now.
Alivardi (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sooo an edit filter? Is that the way I should go?
Alivardi (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Mcnford's editing privileges on Mark Lindquist page

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

The individual "Mcfnord" has come forward stating his COI with the subject of the Mark Lindquist page. I find the fact that he is allowed to edit and discuss on the subject's talk page somewhat inappropriate. Senior editors have continued to allow his participation, even though he has stated himself that he is a noted negative critic who was unsuccessfully prosecuted by Mr. Mark Lindquist. He also has a history of vandalizing said page. CoalBear (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban You forgot to provide diffs and notify the user, but looking at Talk:Mark Lindquist it is clear that this user (and S&S1109 (talk · contribs), who last edited in April) should not be allowed to edit about this topic. Additionally, the Mark Lindquist page should be extended confirmed or fully protected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 The problem with locking down the page is it leaves the page existing as an attack page, authored by Mcnford. CoalBear (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Mark Lindquist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mcfnord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CoalBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang. I self-declared COI recently after I collaborated with a BLP subject COI on another page. The page has been target of many waves of whitewashes by SPAs since 2015, of increasing sophistication. Happy to declare and operate within COI parameters. Mcfnord (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• CoalBear created their account on August 23. Since that time, they have made 46 edits to mainspace and 14 edits to article talk space. Of those 60 edits, 30 have been to the Lindquist article or its Talk page. I wonder if Mcfnord is not the only editor with a COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if BBB23 and Mcnford are the same person? They seem oddly in sync. Like within seconds. I'm only raising a concern here, things do not seem above board concerning Mcnford and the Mark Lindquist page. And bbb23 is also NOT a neutral editor. CoalBear (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my sweet summer child.--Jorm (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that bbb23 has backed up a person grossly in conflict with this page and who has been violating wikipedia rules. How neutral is that? Please don't "sweet summer child" me. That's not very civil, bro. CoalBear (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

5 seconds of checking would show that bbb23 is an administrator at this point you are aiming for a ban 50.35.82.234 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• How many articles do we have on prosecutors at this level? A lot of this looks to me like people trying to carve a biography out of articles surrounding the actions of his office. Guy (help!) 09:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  If you haven't already, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mark Lindquist is worth a read. It seems that in the end, the feeling was whatever else the subject met notability as an author. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with Guy. Most of the content in the prosecutor section is information about the actions of his office. It was added by Mcnford and the page has been stuck with it ever since. Maybe there should be a page about the Pierce Co. Prosecutor's office instead? CoalBear (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Along with Bbb23, I've been the editor who's handled various COI editing over the last 9 months, so I'll cover both Mcnford and CoalBear:

• Oppose Topic Ban - as admitted, Mcfnord has a COI. However, while there were a large number of issues with his edits back during the AfD and very shortly after, he ultimately moved to the Talk page to discuss it. More recently, his direct edits to the article have generally either been non-biased edits, or the reversion of other edits (many of which were biased). He has also participated, though not always with a calm voice, on the talk page. Nosebagbear (talk)

I should note that my second choice would be a ABAN on both editors, in the same format as Cullen328 lays out below Nosebagbear (talk)

• CoalBear's behaviour also shows signs of COI editing, though certainly less egregious than Mcfnord's early edits. Mainly in the form of unbalanced additions and desire to remove sourced information without sufficient reasoning, rather than in-article rants or completely unsourced content. Nosebagbear (talk)
• I would generally advise an extended-confirmed protection, so the discussion can be moved by both/all parties to the Talk Page. There have been positive additions by both sides, so I'm reticent to just advocate removing one or both from the article. Though I suspect this ANI may be encouraged as the most recent points of dispute are because CoalBear couldn't get consensus for more drastic changes - I had advised we'd probably need dispute resolution if they wanted to progress further with certain suggestions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've reread the entire article, and putting aside the list of books he's written, the main section, regardless of how it's balanced, is damned poorly written. I don't think the fellow's sufficiently notable for me to take the time to rewrite it, but maybe someone else might wish to do so. It jumps around from issue to issue: the flow needs to be improved so it reads more like a story, and there is often no context for each individual "fact". Finally, some of the clearly self-promoting material (put in by CoalBear) needs to be removed. We don't need quotes from Lindquist about how he is fighting for justice and the American way.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• There are threads within the facts that I wrung out, even though it made the facts seem independent of each other. I agree the result may as well be a bulleted list. I wanted to find the core facts that shouldn't be forgotten, and toss the rest. I will ponder adding the connections. But you see, that's where the spin of a million centrifuges seems to appear, too. Mcfnord (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• I can support retaining Mcnford's privileges if the prosecutor content on this page is removed. I discovered this page because I liked some of this guy's books. If that makes me COI, then guilty. Admittedly, I'm new here, learning how Misplaced Pages works (and what better way than getting involved in a controversial page, amiright?) It was clear to me that this page was not right. It only contained negative information, and it wasn't a "writer" page. It was mostly about this guy's political career. That content was originally added Mcnford, though it has been trimmed down, into something (as bbb23 correctly states) "damned poorly written." I've advocated for removing said content because a) it's politically motivated either for or against b) has no standing on the reason this wikipedia page was created -- which was for the writer's work, and c) the content of which is completely taken out of context. I've suggested this several times to Nosebagbear, only to be told that the content can stay because it's "reliably sourced." But even they admit that it has nothing to do with why this guy has a page. So why keep it? It has nothing to do with his books. I say make it a page about his writing career and leave it at that. Even leave all the negative reviews. Because it's clear the lawyer stuff really doesn't belong, and was added in the first place as a method of retaliation by Mcnford. CoalBear (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion is based on whether Mcfnord (and any other editors raised, potentially including yourself) are too disruptive due to COIs to legitimately participate in the article. But to give a 1 line summary - please read WP:NOTEWORTHY - "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Pardon me if I don't understand, you might have to explain more to me why that means that content added by a COI (that had nothing to do with the page's reason for existing) can be allowed to stay, and his editing privileges retained. And how information about a prosecutor in a small-ish city is regarded as "notable." I realize this is a discussion about editing privileges, but what I'm saying is I support keeping those privileges if certain content (written by the COI) is removed. He can edit the writing career stuff all he wants. I just think there is a pretty big conflict of interest for Mcnford with the prosecutor content, don't you think? CoalBear (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• For ten years, the subject was the top law enforcement official in my state's second largest county, population nearly 800,000, not a "small-ish city" as you claim. The section lede that you wrote says the subject, "tried some of the most significant cases in Washington State." "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" qualify as noteworthy as WP:POLITICIAN. The public records ruling of the Washington State Supreme Court exists because of this subject's insistence, and has since been cited by the California Supreme Court, making it national case law. Finally, Washington's largest police massacre (to clarify, 4 police were murdered), where the subject said the massacre was worth "$100,000 of free publicity" in a re-election campaign, resulted in nearly all trial verdicts overturned. This should appear in your new lede about noteworthy legal performances. Don't you think? Mcfnord (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would say that if someone could control their COI sufficiently that they wouldn't be an issue if they could only edit part of Lindquist's article, then they can control it for the whole page - limiting it to be conditional on the status of the article isn't viable as it ties a conduct dispute to a very specific content outcome. As said on ML's talk page, his prosecutor career doesn't make him notable (or clearly notable), but once he's notable (which demonstrates an article should exist at all) for another reason, some content can still be included (factoring in WP:DUE & WP:RS etc). Nosebagbear (talk)

• Gosh, I just had a look at what the page was originally started as. The way it appeared at the outset looked like an actual, normal, unbiased wikipedia page, and not a focused attack page regarding his prosecutor career. Looks to me like the page was just fine before Mcnford got involved. CoalBear (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is also misleading. The page had a Law Career section when I arrived. There has been some disagreement about what it should say. You want it to say what the subject might want it to say, and perhaps that's understandable due to your appreciation of his fiction. Please learn to type my name correctly if you could. M-c-f-n-o-r-d. I thought it was a typo at first. Thank you and gosh. Mcfnord (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban on both editors. As I see it, Mcfnord has an acknowledged and deep conflict of interest (a personal grudge) regarding Lindquist, and absolutely should not be editing the article. Because Mcfnord has been editing the article as recently as September 4, I propose that Mcfnord be formally topic banned from the article itself and limited to making specific edit requests on the article's talk page. That being said, CoalBear also shows strong signs of a COI in the opposite direction, and seems to have a personal motivation to whitewash the biography. CoalBear does not disclose their COI. That is also unacceptable. The negative information about Lindquist is not a product of Mcfnord's imagination. The sourcing is solid, he had a very rocky nine years of service as prosecutor and was trounced in his 2018 re-election effort. A neutrally written description of his time in office certainly should be part of his biography. In this case, I believe that both Mcfnord and CoalBear should be restricted from editing the BLP and limited to making specific content suggestions on the talk page. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing by User:Depay11

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

Depay11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a history of edit warring on BLP articles, specifically relating to relationship status of the individual. They have continued, post-block, with their disruptive editing. Recent edits include changing "wife" to "girlfriend" against sourcing. Some diffs include: and .

• 3RR noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394#User:Depay11 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Warned), later blocked for 48 hours.

--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. If Depay11 continues doing this, I think an indefinite block should probably be the next step. I'm getting tired of disruptive editors who never communicate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach - Mass rollback needed

This editor has been replaceing current population figures in infoboxes with 2018 estimates, but the references they are providing lead to a dead Census Bureau page. I thought I could take care of this myself using individual rollback, but there are thousands of them, so someone with a mass rollback script is going to have to deal with it instead.

If the editor doesn't stop, he should probably also be blocked until he understands the problem with what he's doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

At least some of their edits seem to be linking to . It's not immediately clear to me how to find the information on that site - it seems to be at least a few clicks away - but it's no worse than the link that is being replaced. Is it still a 404 for you? ST47 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

All of the dozen or so I spot checked led to a dead link. Again, this editor made at least 2000 of these changes - I lost count of how many 500/edit pages were full of edits labelled as adding 2018 figures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion, as is required by the rules of this noticeboard. I have looked at the four reverts that you made after this most recent comment, hoping that would point me in the right direction: . In each case, you remove a link to https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html, which again, does not appear to be a "dead link". Certainly no more so than the link you replaced it with on at least one occasion, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2016.html. @Beyond My Ken:, what is the dead link, in what way is it dead, and where is a diff in which TylerKutschbach removes a working link with a dead link? ST47 (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)The dead link is this, and the text on it says: "Sorry, the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server.". TylerKutschbach has started to replace this link with the correct one, but there are still very, very many that are wrong. For instance -- choosing randomly -- this, thuis, this, this, and this. If you need more, please ask. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying the editor, something I would normally do as a matter of course. I'm not sure why I forgot in this case, but I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In each of those diffs, the link that was added was https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html, not https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables. ST47 (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

When I click on the URL that the editor added, it sends me directly to the page I described above -- on all of those pages I listed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The usual protocol for these kinds of articles has been to link to that general landing page, but I think it's long past due to use the actual data pages. It's fairly simple to do this en masse by state, as each gets its own table (e.g. this one for Washington); to get a direct link, the user must click on the "Bookmark/Save" button above the table. I've asked the user in question several times to format their citations, but they seem to not be listening. SounderBruce 05:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So, my understanding is this. We have long used an inconvenient reference format. (Links to the correct website, but the wrong page on that site, apparently because of how the target website is designed.) TylerKutschbach has been updating some old links to new links, but keeping the inconvenient format. You and Beyond My Ken have asked Tyler to begin using the better format, and it seems like he has done in some situations, but he has not been communicating with the people who have reached out to him via his talk page? If that's the case, I hope we can agree that mass rollback of this user's contribs is not needed: while it might be better to use the new format, their edit updating from (e.g.) 2016 data (and an inconvenient ref) to 2018 data (and an equally inconvenient ref) is still a constructive edit. The article has not been left any worse off. To invoke a relevant policy, it doesn't seem to fit into WP:ROLLBACKUSE. So I hope we can stop reverting and instead look into the communication issue, starting by seeing if TylerKutschbach responds here or not. ST47 (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding why when I click on the link (on the diff page) I go once place, and you go another. Every time I do it, I go to https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables, which I;m obviously being re-driected to. Why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It could be a location-thing, like is-in-america/is-not-in-america, I've encountered it once before. Have no idea of the intent behind it, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html works fine for me..I don't know what's causing problems for Beyond My Ken, but I would suggest it's something best dealt with at the Help Desk or maybe VPT or similar. I don't think TylerKutschbach needs to stop just because one editor is having problems with the links, although they do need to communicate and as SounderBruce said, I'm not sure if they're using the best replacement. BTW, I assume Beyond My Ken is having the same problems with links to that page here e.g. earlier or ? Because if not it's an even weirder issue but even more of an indication whatever is going wrong for BMK, it's not justification for reverting the edits since it can clearly be seen in the diffs the URL is the same. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

And -- another question -- why hasn't the editor responded to anything on his talk page? They have not made a single edit to it. . Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like on Sep 8, the editor started using Census Quickfact links, and changed their edit summary from 2018 estimates to 2018 estimates with the page website with the community showing the population number. See, for example, their last 100 contribs. I think this is a good improvement. Would be better if they engaged directly on their user talk page or here. – Levivich 18:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• It seems that the linking problem is specific to me, for some reason, and that TK has started using a more appropriate reference anyway, so I'd like to withdraw this report as mostly moot. The only outstanding issue is why TK isn't communicating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Behavioral problem on Right-wing politics

Sourced material was added to Right-wing politics on August 11 (not by me). Three weeks later, there was a dispute about whether to keep it, so a discussion ensued . The discussion did not reach a consensus, so I started an RfC about whether it should be kept or not. Now, the editors who want to delete the material User:Springee and User:Victor Salvini are removing it, despite the fact that the RfC is still running. , , .

I would appreciate an admin informing Springee and Victor Salvini not to remove the material in question until the RfC has run its course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Both editors notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The material was originally added by @Michael E Nolan: on 11 August and deleted by Victor Salvini (new editor, account started 22 June, 92 edits to date) on 3 September , 23 days later. The deletion was reverted by @Acroterion: that same day, about 3 1/2 hours later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The restoration was part of a bulk restoration and appears to have been restored not to rescue this text but rather to revert this edit ]. See the talk comment here ]. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK needs to review both WP:BRD and WP:CON. Simple version. Material was added. Four edits to the article later, that material was rejected. I have not been involved with the editing of the article in question but noted the back and forth edits on Sept 3rd. I opened a talk discussion and pinged the involved editors (BMK was not involved at that point)]. Contrary to BMK's claim, the talk page rather quickly reached a local consensus with both of the original editors favoring removing the paragraph and myself favoring removal. BMK favored inclusion, thus 3:1 against inclusion.]. Since this was new material a non-consensus is sufficient for removal. BMK opened a RfC. That's fine. The current RfC is 4:1 against.] If the RfC finds for inclusion in the end, it will be included. In the mean time BMK is attempting to use the existence of the RfC as a block to prevent the removal of the material that clearly has no support from other editors. My read is this was new content that was rejected and no local consensus has ever existed for inclusion thus BRD and the flowchart shown in WP:CON apply here. The material was removed and should not have been restored until consensus for inclusion was reached. The WP:CON policy does not support keeping recently added, disputed content in place until a RfC is completed. Springee (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• WP:Tag team is also pertinent here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of meatpuppetry or coordination? If not this seems like a bad faith accusation. Springee (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient implicit evidence on the talk page to bring it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Should WP:ONUS not apply here, with the contested edit that is being introduced only included once there is consensus for inclusion? El_C 05:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, El_C, I'm not understanding your point clearly. There is an RfC running to determine consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion should happen after there is consensus to include. It seems like the cart is being put before the horse. El_C 05:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Umm.. I don't think so. :The material was in the article for over three weeks, plenty of time for WP:SILENCE to make it part of the status quo version, in which case the BOLD edit is not the inclusion of the material on 11 August, but the first removal by Victor Salvini on 3 September. At that point, the issue becomes not whether it should be included -- because it already is included -- but whether it should be deleted, which the RfC will determine, if it weren't being usurped by two editos who want it removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether three weeks counts as longstanding text. Maybe. At the very least, it's borderline. El_C 06:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages? Three weeks is an eternity. <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Three weeks is an eternity at Donald Trump. Not quite an eternity at an irregularly edited article like Right-wing politics. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

Have to at least partially agree with Bishonen etc. Three weeks is far from an eternity. IMO even 2 months can be reasonable on a barely edited article. Disputes over article content are perhaps not the best examples to look at since most of the time people don't really care as we can usually achieve consensus on something. So really it's just a pointless dispute over interim content. But in case where no consensus is a realistic outcome, you can probably find a lot of examples. E.g. undiscussed page moves. Or undiscussed era or language changes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Since there were just 4 edits between the addition and removal I don’t think the 3 weeks could be considered stable. I would ask that someone look at SquisherDa restoration of the content in the past few hours. It seems like an unwise restoration. Springee (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been notified about this discussion and I’m here to give my testimony. On August 11th a user included a quote in right wing politics by Steve bannon. The quote was thrown in without context and presented no information. I removed the quote one September 3rd only for it to be added back again. The issue went to talk where’s there’s now a huge message history regarding it. Ken started a vote on whether it should be removed or kept. After a few days a supermajority of users who had voted were against the inclusion on the quote. Since the discussion was dying down and no one else was getting involved I removed the quote again, this time ken re-added the quote telling me that we had to wait 30 days before removing (because an “RfC” or something was running, I don’t know what he was on about). Springee, a user who’s been a strong supporter of removing the quote, said in the talk page that the quote could be removed because of the time since it was originally added, and removed the quote again, only for it to get added back again by another user and now we’re here. Victor Salvini —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored restoring the 00:32, 6 August 2019 version (stable version from before the recent edit war, unchallenged for nearly two months). I then re-added a minor grammar correction and short description template as being uncontroversial changes that are unlikely to be challenged.

Please discuss your preferred version on the article talk page rather than through back-and-forth edits. If you cannot reach a consensus, I suggest settling the dispute through an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

I am providing sources :

https://www.isro.gov.in/chandrayaan2-latest-updates

(Slashed123 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC))

This noticeboard does not serve as a centralized discussion for content disputes. El_C 17:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please allow to discuss at talk page of Chandrayan 2 , because many editors editing with out any sources.The above source says the present problem is

"Communication Disruption with Vikram lander, remaining all are safe and Orbiter working well"

(Slashed123 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC))

Personal attacks and cross-wiki abuse

Hi,

Can you please block Deerbloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Cross-wiki abuse and starting to harass me. First on fr-wp (fr:Spécial:Contributions/Deerbloat), they made personnal attacks against an admin and an admin candidate, so I blocked they there. Now they come on my en-wp talk page, treating me of "dictator"…

PS: is that the appropriate admin noticeboard to ask blocks like this one?

Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Done, but if it continues m:SRG may be a better option. --Rschen7754 22:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. (I hesitated, for SRG.) Jules78120 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards