Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:22, 10 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

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

• 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)
• Support. This editor's behavior imposes too much burden on other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC) (n0n-admin).

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 (including punctuation and capitalization) 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)

  Define "really necessary"; very few things are really necessary, strictly speaking. Awilley added this is as an "alternate" in Proposal 3. I saw that and felt the two proposals were different enough to warrant two sections for organization's sake. Am I missing some reason why things would have worked better the other way? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

  The question was rhetorical. It actually wasn't that much of an annoyance to have to repeat my oppose. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 9 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)

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)

A content dispute? How is clear violation of NPOV and POV pushing supposed to be a content dispute? How would you "discuss" with somebody who specializes in pointless discussions which go nowhere and only result in mental fatigue? This is a chronic problem and this user is only here to damage the encyclopedia by writing religious BS all around the articles related to Islam, and should be indefd. It is inappropriate to jump in and jeopardize matters one has literally no understanding of just so that it may potentially be counted as plus point in any future RFAs. This is an admin board and the issue was brought here for admin attention. However 7 days on and their indifference and disinterest in this is appalling. As if this were some issue of some Arabpedia or Islampedia and not of this encyclopedia and hence none of their business. I thought adminship was not a cuteness, fragility or incompetence contest. Seems it is on all three counts. 1100 of them and can't handle very basic of their functions; attending to issues brought to their attention. Jimbo bless this site. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:49, 10 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)

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)

Maybe he's not a newbie so to speak, but I still feel that sanctions are inappropriate given the circumstances. This was a low-grade editing conflict that ended over a week ago. Although misguided, I can see why he might have thought that discussion on his own talk page was the place to have the conversation about the source, and when he got no response he proceeded on. That's a wrong belief, but I can see how someone might have it. He now appears to be discussing the sourcing and hasn't made a controversial edit recently. Rushing to a block would be inappropriate. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 17:47, 9 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)

What does being American have to do with it? Sounds like you're not assuming good faith -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:02, 9 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. (unsigned)

I know, but "when used properly" is the kicker. Some of our drive-by editors inappropriately treat it as in effect an era style, and many editors don't use it properly. I don't even know how freely we should switch between "years ago" and either BP or BC/BCE. Is there a standard, or WP policy? Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

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 in my sandbox 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)

BC1278, thanks. That's helpful context. Note that you pinged poor Barkeep. For future reference I'm the 49th Barkeep. :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 9 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. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Now I realize why Wikipedians often don’t explain anything, just leaving default edit summary or doing things like this depending on level of privileges. It is safer to be not accountable than face whining about “collegial manner” by disgruntled people. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

… and we can see another example of fine etiquette by a defender of civility. Removing without summary is safe; at least, it protects against pettifogging like that. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• This has gone on for years, since 2012 or so, and shows no sign of any improvement. Incnis Mrsi is evidently incapable of any discussion, let alone the most minor disagreement, with other editors without using it as an opportunity to abuse and disparage them. They cannot say, "SVG images would be better for this diagram than JPG", they prefer "Don't upload this filth". They behave in just the same way at Commons.

They know that this is a problem – it has been pointed out often enough. So they're simply not interested in changing their behaviour. Accordingly, I'd support any sanction up to an indef block. We'd all be so much better off without them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Who “we”? BTW, the quotation is not exact – I suggested not to upload filth in general, not restricted to JPG filth or a specific case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As for “not interested in changing”, that’s not true. I have a strong incentive to accommodate to local norms due to en.Misplaced Pages’s de facto central position in this ecosystem. Some people would be certainly happy to see me listed as enemy, but it is not a majority sentiment, hopefully. I will not waste that much effort (as for the thread above) anymore on this site. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one can really tell your desire to change; after all, it's not like you've been repeating the same behaviors while this discussion is ongoing or anything. --JBL (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a user should know how WP:BRD works before going to push his/her stuff for the second time. At least, I am entitled to right to express such opinion, and nothing is wrong with stating it in an edit summary given that, at the end, it was me who went to the talk page. The posting from 13:01 consists of quibbles to drown me. Surely I disrupted Misplaced Pages if that many users waste their time here instead of hunting crackpots. But this thread overgrew its usefulness for the people of value: four of five established en.Wikipedians will be glad to see me ejected, but such conclusion of infighting by productive users would also bring relief to PoV pushers, waste-makers, vandals, sock puppets, not to mention some quarters of “respectable” abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is still ongoing at Commmons:

"fixed consequences of atrociously poor categorization by the uploader"

"fixed incompetent provenance declarations"

An editor who can't stop attacking other editors over trivia like this, even whilst they're at ANI, is an editor who either cannot or will not change. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 10 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)

  I think that IM should be be blocked for a year or longer for being unable to edit Misplaced Pages in a collegial manner and being unwilling to change his behavior. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC). (non-admin)

  In light of the fact that a two-month break after the previous ANI seems to have done nothing to mitigate these concerns, I'd propose a minimum length of six months. I'd even settle with indefinite and an unblock condition of remaining civil and not shouting or belittling other editors, with a civility restriction enforcing this regardless of block length (i.e. coming into play after the expiry of the block). Unfortunately, given the behavior in these (and many other unlinked) diffs, and no evident interest in changing ways, a block seems to be the only means to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. (WP:BLOCKP points 2 and 3). ComplexRational (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose block Many of the diffs above do not show any incivility. The suggestion that there is much more is rather weak when you're already struggling to find some. Also, when you want to complain about another user being less than perfectly civil, don't respond to them in kind. Nothing rises to a level that we should worry about. Respect their expertise, remain civil yourselves, and you'll be fine. Almond Plate (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

This page's introduction says: "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". This report is missing diffs (or other identifications), even after being asked for them. This post is useless and to be ignored. -DePiep (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support admin action, including a warning and/or block per admin discretion; "something must be done". The incivility disruption is ongoing (diff, see edit summary, from the past 24hrs), and it doesn't appear this editor will be changing their behavior in this regard. – Levivich 17:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block this is yet another time sink. This is a perpetual and wide spread problem and while it's not enwiki's battle to fight, it's worth noting that IM is blocked for 6 months as of today on meta for incivility and attacks, they were warned again on commons for incivility, all while this discussion about blocking them indefinitely here, for incivility has been taking place. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 10 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) (personal resentment) 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)

Mcfnord asked me on my talk page to change the word "grudge" so I am using "resentment" instead. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to ban me too that's fine. Believe or not, I got on wikipedia to try and fix stuff, to bring more balance to pages of authors I love. As a fan I might be COI, but not so much that it would break my heart to be banned from this specific page. AS LONG AS you ban Mcfnord too. I just think it's crazy anyone lets him edit the page of someone he so clearly "resents," and that his additions have been allowed to stay. I don't want to whitewash anything, and I don't think this page should be extended confirmed. That would be a travesty for Misplaced Pages to leave this page as it is. It only shows the site at its very worst -- a venue for people to air out their hate. I think that since this is a biography of a living, breathing, person -- who isn't that notable at all -- it should at the very least reflect some fairness. There aren't really wikipedia pages of lawyers on here, and a city of 800,000 isn't that big. The cases sited in the page aren't well written, to explain them would take a lot of content, and they're only there because Mcfnord has a grudge (ahem, resentment). Lindquist is best known for his books, let the page reflect that, and ban nonsense editors like Mcfnord and even myself if you want to. Just make the page more fair for this actual living person. Please. That's all I have to say about it. This has gotten way too contentious for my appetite and is exactly the reason why newbies like me don't last on Misplaced Pages. I know this because it's been reported in major news sources :) CoalBear (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You're like a hit parade of spin. I self-declared COI a few days ago knowing what limits that added. I've already made an edit suggestion. You're not declared a COI so fire up the misinformation and whitewashing. I'm going to enumerate the deceptions from the talk page, but I bet nobody cares enough to act. It's an experiment! Mcfnord (talk) 07:22, 9 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)

I disagree...as it seems do others. Buffs (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

remark by blocked user commented out by Buffs (talk)

• Comment: A CU may want to look at Buff Sanass; specifically their contributions, and read the article names vertical. Clever, but clearly not here.--Jorm (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• At any case, indeffed. El_C 01:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• El_C, thank you for blocking that NOTHERE vandal. There's absolutely no need for that kind of thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Also, perhaps a checkuser might take a look at 199.247.43.138, which looks very much a logged-out editor avoiding scrutiny in their edits to Right-wing populism , , .These reverts were made after I completely re-shaped the material in order to move it to a specific section of the article, to answer the complaints that it wasn't pertinent in the section it was in. It looks more and more like this is a deliberate campaign of whitewashing. Neither of the two articles that are concerned here has a consensus for the removal of this material, but it is being kept out of both articles by brute force. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 10 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 concur with Bishonen and El_C... I think that's the first time I've done that... Buffs (talk) 17:50, 9 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 the ongoing RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! It feels like BMK is pushing a political agenda with this filing. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say exactly the opposite, actually, that Springee, in particular, is going of their way to remove pertinent material because they simply do not want to see an accurate assessment of right-wing populism in a Misplaced Pages article. Case in point: when I added the same material to Right-wing populism, and supported it with material from two undoubtedly reliable academic sources, they removed it from that article as well, and the academic sources with it.My only agenda (as always) is that our articles accurately present prtinent and sourced information on their subject matters, as opposed to attempting to WP:CENSOR information that I don't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And Springee continues their attempt to whitewash Right-wing populism of material they apparently disagree with. Once again, this is a behavioral issue resulting from a content dispute, not a content dispute per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions by accusing others of "whitewashing". Springee (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you're following me from article to article with the only obvious reason the deletion of this material, I think that a violation of WP:CENSOR (i.e. "whitewashing") is a reasonable conclusion. WP:Casting aspersions is about making claims without evidence. In this case, the evidence appears to be sufficient to raise the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll side with Springee on this one. BMK, this is a WP:POINTy edit and I think you know it. You want this quote included, but you don't seem to have any third party analysis of it. An analogous situation would be someone of prominence standing up and saying "The White House is White because it is a symbol of racism in France, where the architect came from" and including it in the White House article at the end of the paragraph about it's design. It simply doesn't belong. While it's verifiable, within context it isn't notable. Someone from the left or right saying "stay the course!" isn't notable by any stretch. Buffs (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: "POINTy" I know no such thing. I often add pertinent material to multiple articles that it is appropriate for. The notability is clear and obvious to anyone (or, at least, almost anyone) who isn't hellbent on making sure the information doesn't appear on Misplaced Pages, as seems to be the case here. Besides, this is not a discussion about whether the information should be added, that is not appropriate for AN/I, this is a discussion about the behavior of the people attempting to whitewash it, and the various policies and norms they have violated, which at this point include WP:Harassment (following me from article to article), WP:NPOV, WP:Sockpuppetry (editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny), WP:Tag team, WP:Casting aspersions (the claims that I am editing with a political agenda), WP:CENSOR (throughout), and possibly creating a "Joe Job" account. These are not aspersions, evidence is present to support each and every one of these claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, I would think the above discussion would make it clear that if consensus isn't established and edits are challenged then the matter is resolved on the talk page before the material is restored. You have instead decided to go full bull in the China shop on both the Right Wing Politics article as well as the Right-wing populism article where you have ignored objections from myself and The Four Deuces while suggesting that consensus was needed to reject new edits. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There are discussions on two different article talk pages about whether the material is appropriate for including in that article. Some of the arguments made on Talk:Right-wing politics may be applicable to Right-wing populism but not all of them, both because they are two different, but related ,subjects, and because the material in question is presented differently (i.e in a much more integrated manner, with supporting citations from reliable academic sources) on Right-wing populism, while it was added rather baldly (not by me, remember) on Right-wing politics.In any event, since we're waiting for the culmination of an RfC on Right-wing politics, there is currently no consensus which can be applied to Right-wing populism, and even when the RfC is concluded, whether its decision whould be pertinent to Right-wing populism would depend on why it was excluded from the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any activity that requires consideration here. TFD (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not surprising. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks and cross-wiki abuse

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

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)

Threats on Article

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

Can you please block User:91.154.176.74 he's giving off threats in Misplaced Pages and is defaming Bobby Madden see AbhiMukh97 08:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Openmy

Openmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

FourFive separate users have now written on this users talk page about WP:NOPIPE. In addition to having been reverted with these same concerns. They have been reminded that they are required to WP:ENGAGE in conversation . Yet they continue to make edits in this same manner (as of yesterday ), and are refusing to ENGAGE.

I believe this user is not here to build a collaborative project, as is obvious by their refusal ENGAGE. - Galatz גאליץ 14:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Note I have edited my original post because I realized another person mentioned the same thing to this user 4 years ago. - Galatz גאליץ 14:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Guy applying a too-stringent ban on first-party references in Retrospect (software)?

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

On 21 August 2019 Guy put the {{Primary sources}} tag on the "Retrospect (software)" article. "What are your criteria for 'Relies too much on references to primary sources' for articles on software applications?" is a diff of the discussion on Guy's User Talk: JzG.

Key exchanges in that discussion are:

The basic problem is that this is an article about a client-server backup software application with a 30-year history. One of the two references I just added says its newly-acquired single-application vendor has "half a million customers but skinny revenues". That may be counting customers still using older versions of the application under perpetual licenses, because those versions just keep on working so long as you don't need new features (...). There haven't been any reviews of the Windows variant since 2012 , but one independent Mac news source publishes a new review at least for every once-a-year new major version.

The article does cite three primary-source references at least 10 times each, but that's because the article from the third section on consists of a very compact list of application features. Secondary-source reviews simply don't mention all of the features of a software application; for those a Misplaced Pages editor must fall back on the primary-source application manuals and knowledge-base articles.What must I do to justify removing the tag? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove anything that's sourced to their own websites or to press releases. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

First, the "Retrospect (software)" article is not PR in the sense that WP:OTHERSTUFF discusses. The notability of its subject is demonstrated by referenced up-through-2019 reviews of the software on the Mac-related TidBITS.com website and referenced reviews up through 2012 on Windows-related websites.....DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

....

It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces. Don't include anything that independent commentators haven't thought significant enotgh to cover. Don't inlcude sources that are obviously based on press releases (aka churnalism). Don't include WP:HOWTO or other manual-like content. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy's definition of "relies too much on references to primary sources", stated in those exchanges, goes well beyond the Misplaced Pages rules that "Primary sources should be used carefully". Those state "However, primary sources may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. .... The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about its history, products ....".

I use four primary sources—20 cites of 101 total vs. 52 of 101 when the diff'ed discussion started—in the article: User's Guides for the Windows and Macintosh variants of the Retrospect application, a collection of technical Knowledge Base articles that expand on product features described—or recent enhancements not described—in the UGs, and the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows. I use these mainly to demonstrate the existence of product features: Small-group features, Enterprise client-server features, and Edition and Add-On features. The exceptions are in the article's lead—where one provides the only available mention of a feature that has been recently deleted from the application products, the History section—where two describe a un-reviewed (because it is cross-variant) difference between the Macintosh and Windows variants of the products, and one developer notice (referenced because it is sneaky) that a feature will be changed to an Add-On. The article makes no use of any "how-to" content that may be in the primary sources.

More thoughts on a ban on first-party references

I agree with Guy here. Primary sources are OK for things like headquarters city, current CEOs name and the like. What is considered a "feature" is part of how a company markets its product and referencing "features" to the company website is not appropriate. We need independent sourcing for that. But this is really just a content dispute which should be discussed on the article talk page. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a slightly-famous case where the primary reference is an abstract written before the actual paper, and turned out to be wrong. (Not unusual in conference papers.) Reasons like that are why secondary sources are preferred. But as above, in some cases primary sources are best. Gah4 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Guy, and also with Cullen328. I realized an hour ago that the root of the dispute is a particular bit of terminology corruption over the last 50 years in our English-speaking culture. IMHO the corruption is that "sell" has been turned into a four-letter-word (for non-native English speakers, that puts "sale" into the same category as "f**k"), with the euphemistic synonym "market". Cullen328 reveals on his personal Project page that "I have been self employed as a small business owner in the construction industry for 25 years". To illustrate the terminology corruption, let's first ask whether Cullen328's firm sells cabinetry services, and if so what kind. The answer to that would be either "no" or a list of cabinetry services. If the answer is not 'no", we can next ask how his firm markets those services—to which the answer could be "on Craigslist" or "via TV ads" or "via ads in glossy magazines".

My point is that the parts of the first-party references used in the Retrospect (software) article only list software features for sale, they do not attempt to market those features. If they did so that would be a violation of Primary sources should be used carefully—but they don't so it's not a violation. In the article those references simply verify that Retrospect Inc. sells software with particular listed features.

Let me close with an example of why I use a first-party Knowledge Base reference in one case in which I could have used a second-party reference. (To understand what I'm talking about, you need to first read the lead of the Retrospect (software) article.) In the LAN/WAN/Cloud paragraph, I've written "Advanced network client support—which can be extended to 'remote' clients anywhere on the Internet for Proactive scripts and user-initiated backups/restores ...." There exists a second-party review of Retrospect that mentions its "remote backup support for remote employees"; however—besides admittedly being a straight copy of a Retrospect Inc. press release—it doesn't mention either user-initiated backups and restores or the limitation to Proactive backups. That's why I used the first-party reference for this feature. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The notion that the marketing plan of my tiny dad-mom-son business might be subject to analysis here at ANI had never occurred to me before, and it feels as creepy to me as it is wildly inaccurate and presumptuous. I have no objection whatsoever to ethical businesses selling their goods and services anywhere, with the exception of Misplaced Pages. This encylopedia does not need content created by marketers and PR professionals because it can never be neutral, and that content is readily available on company websites. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please forgive me, Cullen328, I was just using your business as an easy-to-understand hypothetical example of the difference between "product sales support" and "product marketing"—as they used to be understood. A first-party user manual on a piece of software such as Retrospect should properly discuss the features of the software, but it shouldn't stray into a marketing-oriented discussion. The pages I have listed in my four first-party references are strictly confined to a discussion of particular features, so they weren't written by marketers or PR professionals—just technical writers or application programmers (I was an application programmer for 40 years before I retired, but I never worked for Retrospect Inc.—I've merely been a paying user of their software for 19 out of the last 24 years). DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The very word "feature" in this context comes from the world of advertising, marketing and public relations. Cullen Let's discuss it 15:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ; since 2008 the software feature WP article has quoted the IEEE 829 definition ""A distinguishing characteristic of a software item (e.g., performance, portability, or functionality)." I could have used "functionality" in my comments above, but IME everyone talks whether a piece of software has a particular "feature". There's also the American Heritage Dictionary definition; I'm using sense 2, while Cullen328 is using sense 7. I'm afraid his brain, along with those belonging to a number of other WP administrators, has been colonized by Madison Avenue. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of administrator brains being colonized by Madison Avenue, I had an applicable WP experience the day after Labor Day. I was making an edit to the Retrospect (software) article, and found that WP was suddenly insisting that every {{cite web}} ref have a "website=" parameter. This was a real nuisance, as I found when I made some minor edits to the NetBackup article—most of which I didn't write—and found that this insistence was being applied to refs so old that their URL's were dead (which made it difficult to look up their website names!). Fortunately, by a day or so later cooler heads had prevailed in WP support, so the "website=" error messages disappeared. I get the strong feeling from personal Talk pages I have seen that some administrators want to ban first-party refs, and requiring the "website=" parameter would make it easy for a bot to enforce that ban. See my above comments for why that would be a really bad idea for articles on software. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Request Ban of Reddragon7 per NOTHERE

Reddragon7 is a disclosed paid editor who has created and submitted many drafts through AfC which I have come across while reviewing submissions. They disclose being a freelancer and accepted jobs through the website "WikiPresence" which not only offers to create Misplaced Pages pages, but also offers to create press for such. I asked them previously about using references that don't mention the subject they are writing about as well as unreliable sources such as Medium. The response I feel was canned and normal of a paid editor who is WP:NOTHERE. To be clear, there are paid editors who can follow the rules, but I don't feel Reddragon7 can do that. The reason being is that the majority of their submission through AfC are being rejected for things like advertising, notability, and referencing (the last one I rejected was for WP:REFBOMBING which included sources that didn't even discuss the subject of the draft title). Submissions which constantly don't meet Misplaced Pages guidelines causes extra work for those of us reviewing drafts at AfC and would request a ban of this user since they can't seem to get that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not review and correct submissions that are paid for and don't comply with guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at their paid work. There are two problems: First, they accept commissions from subjects that are extremely unlikely to be notable (such as this one and thisone, and about 2/3 of his attempted articles. Second, whether or not the subject is likely to be notable, most of the references used are straight PR, from obvious PR sites, such as this and this, or at best clearly promotional pieces on magazine and web sites that let promotional interviews be published. Almost all the references used besides such obvious promotion, are notices about funding or the subjects own site. Only one of their paid articles has been accepted, MGC Pharmaceuticals , and, in my opinion it should not have been, and I have listed it for afd.

This editor is doing harm to Misplaced Pages,--and also to his unsuspecting clients. Any of them who might actually merit articles will find it much harder to eventually get them afte the spam that this editor is writing with their money are removed from WP.

Unless there are objections, I intend to block. The ordinary processes of G11 and G13 will deal with the article drafts.

The editor has written some acceptable articles for WiR, andhas done acceptable editing in other areas. Butthe harm that is being done outweighs this. I don't think a topic block would be sufficient, for it would encourage sockpuppettry. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is likely to happen with blocked paid editors I agree. Is there a way to do a global ban on the editor and the company they work for so we can simply delete their creations if found to be socks or meat? If these are through a company, they will likely give it to another employee if this one is banned. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

No objection here; I would support a block, for precisely the reasons outlined above. Getting this user to make the correct disclosures has been an uphill struggle, and at the time of writing they still had yet to disclose their affiliations via Upwork. Improving Misplaced Pages is very clearly a secondary concern to Reddragon7, falling in far behind their primary motivator of "making bank". Yunshui _水 07:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a block is the correct action in this situation. Our editors' time is valuable, and maybe even more so with AFC, where article creators should be attempting to create acceptable articles in good faith - so as not to waste others' valuable efforts. The standards cannot be ignored while crossing fingers and hoping for a pass - rather than choosing to not submit and waste other people's time out of consideration. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats at John Nathan-Turner

John Nathan-Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anonymous IP User talk:195.166.151.225 has made legal threats at John Nathan-Turner if the article references the most prominent biography of the subject. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Diff: and the following edit. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Even though this is not a BLP, I checked the sources cited for the cause of death and found them wanting. Removed the purported cause of death.-- Deepfriedokra 21:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• If I'd followed the dif, I'd seen that's not the issue.-- Deepfriedokra 21:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• The book by Richard Marson seems relevant. I know fans dislike it, but Marson is a respected industry figure and the book is published by a legitimate, if boutique, publishing house, and Marson is not listed as having any controlling interest. Guy (help!) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of all else, I'm blocking the IP. Legal threats are not permitted, period. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks, WP:Civility

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

I am sorry but I have no choice to make this report (nota bene, I've waited if the correspondent editor retreats or at least apoligize for his untenable accusations, but unfortunately this did not happen.)

We have a discussion on a content issue, where Jac Hodec unfortunately made as well an ad hominem personal attack ()

Quote:

"I'm sure that if Misplaced Pages existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing that Pravda is the only reliable source of information on the Soviet Communist Party, and that all accusations by the hostile Western media and their internal allies should be disregarded as propaganda."

I responded him () and pointed out this should be retreated imemdiately or to apologize because even if not my personal views would be deep anti-Communist or my family would not be presecuted by the Communist, such personal attacks and incivilities are harmful in our community and deteriorating from the topic with such personalizations as well is heavily unprofessional.

Suprisingly by his answer (), he did not mea culpa even a little but openly stated:

- I apologise for nothing

and repeated the same nonsense personal attack:

- The whole premise of my point is that the arguments being forwarded by Fidesz and by proxy repeated by New00100 and yourself are the same as those that were made by the Communist regimes against their outside critics"

This such disgusting, that I still cannot come out of the schock, since all of my arguments were factual, professional and served accuracy and WP:NPOV and I proudly stand for them and anyone may check them, practically this is as open accusation of lying, just because Jay Hodec does not like I have an opinion and a first-hand knowledge and experience in the politics of Hungary, that anyway I live on my own skin and on the contrary Communism taught Hungarians how to identify, debunk and fight agains propaganda or manipulation, shall it come from any party... But what concerns me as well, in the discussion he pinged in as well a sockpuppet "@WyGolf:", but since I know WP:Civility and WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, I hope just by mistake he did this...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

The first of these comments is an analogy about style of argumentation (and also perhaps about countries with state-controlled media), the second is about the form and nature of your argument. Neither of them is a personal attack. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, unfortunately my arguments or their nature does not have any similarities to any "Communist regimes", on the contrary, I am scientist with a high level mathematical and logical expertise, and my argumentations and their details may be decomponated such way as well, try me if you want, but any comparison that was performed above is above all level of a civilized and moderate discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

It's still insinuating bad faith. The sentence before the first quoted sentence was "I must also point out that arguments put forth against the right-wing to far-right designation by KIENGIR and New00100 in this section are eerily reminiscent of proclamations made in Soviet propaganda denouncing the adversarial mendacious imperialist capitalist media of the West." EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out the perceived weakness of an arguement or proposition (ie that it is a "poor" or "bad" arguement - and why) does not intrinsically imply that the person making the arguement or proposition did so in bad faith. However, characterising a rebuttal as an "accusation of lying" does intrinsically imply bad faith and might fall to WP:POT. Also, the statement: just because Jay Hodec does not like I have an opinion would appear to be an assumption. Disagreeing with the opinion of another is not the same. Such a statement is personalising the dispute, and would appear to be attacking the person through attacking their perceived motives. (edit confict) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella, the point is there is not any weakness of my arguments on my side - if it is, please demonstrate them somehow - that bad faith is the proposed analogy here with the Communist regime (that would imply lying/twisting and other horrible things) that evidently does not hold, on the contrary would take the discussion away from the point, and yes, it may seem an "accusation of lying", like I would do it deliberately. My "assumption" does not qualify that heavy weight I received, I recognize I should have added at least "appear to be", I am sorry for this. Please also have in mind, he just declared the third time of feeling NO apoligize on the talk page and I did not start personalization towards him, so excuse me...(accusing with Communist alike crimes is such a casting aspersion that are really may be considered as "redflag").(KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Firstly, I have not and am not commenting on the actual strengths or weaknesses of arguements in the TP discussion. The analogy being made is between "arguements" (ie this is the same sort of arguement as made by ...). It is not asserting similarities between those making the arguements - ie it is not equating you with being a communist. This would be a syllogistic fallacy. To the second part of the allegation being an "accusation of lying" and now "accusing with Communist alike crimes", the analogy is explained and does not assert or suggest either accusation. It is simply not evidenced by the TP posts. There are several premises missing for a logical conclusion to such an effect. The allegations appear to be an erroneous conflation rather than a matter of insinuation or casting aspersions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella, if someone two times reinforcing that an argumentation is alike with the Communist regime's and insisting what other editors would do if WP would exist in the 80's and openly saying they would support the horror regime is an offensive and shocking assertion and implying those things I draw the attention. Not I am the only one who noticed the very bad faith charachter of this -even if the original contributor would mean attacking just arguments, this is definetly not the proper way for it - to say nothing of is very unprofessional and aspectacularly lame and loud trial to deteriorate the discussion from it's root, especially when my arguments have zero analogies that the accusator introduced and at the time of the discussion he did not have better tool to attack in such a way, i.e.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

That: an argumentation is alike with the Communist regime's and insisting what other editors would do if WP would exist in the 80's, is not an unreasonable observation except in the way it has been paraphrased by editorialising (per emphasis). Openly saying they would support the horror regime, is a misrepresentation in many ways. They have not said any of what you infer and to represent it as such, might be construed as a personal attack. What they said, is: I'm sure that if Misplaced Pages existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing ... You are a self-professed logistician. As such, I had hoped that you might have studied my comments more closely. Not I am the only one who noticed the very bad faith charachter of this - your evidence please? Personalising an arguement into a personal attack can cut both ways, with conflation being the converse course (ie I take your comments personally v asserting you are ... or you did ...). Insisting that these have been made as personal attacks has the potential to WP:BOOMERANG. You have received an apology to the extent that the posts were not intended to be perceived as you have done. This would appear to be a positive step forward. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella, see EvergreenFir's opinion. Yes, it is a step forward, but seems after realizing the very happenings, I disagree it would be anyway close to boomerang, since I did not do anything on such weight like he did, you are criticizing partially of my observations and summaries here, that is not part of the original incident/root cause. Regarding logics, there is no any resemblence to my argumenation to that one the editor tried to compare or make an analogie, since my argumentation may be decomponated into logical variables and a proper inference may be done, and it does not lead to contradiction or falsity in such manner, that his assertion would imply (simply we may argue of mathematical satisfiability on a logical statements with universal quantors and variables, if we really try to enter in scientific/advanced logic, however I'm qualified on this in academic level, not a self-invention). I am sorry you don't feel and see how stigmatizing and prejudicative was his assertion. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

   "The problem is all of these trials are coming from only those news and media concerns, individuals who in the past eight years as well attacked Fidesz and the Hungarian Government, many times with groundless or exaggerated accusations with a huge double measure comparing to other states where the same or worse happened, but just because they did not share conservative right-wing views and disagreed on more high-level political questions, they were not attacked at the same manner." - KIENGIR

   "Sorry, the problem is regardless some media goups are officially regarded "independent", there are those groups who consistently attacking/labeling/accusing the party with some designations that does not hold (regardless what it is, if there is a chance it is done, even if the epithes are varying...mostly the left side and media groups nationally/internationally who traditionally criticizing and labeling right wing parties, or their policies (even if the right/left designation in some other countries have no interpretation based on different political heritage, but the direction and idea have common directions)...Hungary and it's government is recently a target mainly beucase of it's anti-immigration policy and opposition to the some European policies (European United States vs. Federalism of strong national states, etc. in scope of the forthcoming European Parlamentiary Elections). Fidesz factually has no connection to any far-right agenda, not even commited such. Thus such opinons may only represented as an opinion of some circles." - KIENGIR

   "This is funny how the hysterical leftists & their far-leftists friends happen to spam "far-right" when new antisemitic acts took place in France. Moreover, it shouldn't be forgotten that those same leftists tolerate the islamo-leftism & radical Salafist movement & mosquees in European countries (especially on the West). You should stop look for scapegoats on the right-wing side & behave like real adults with a free will by questioning yourselves. And to end it all, fascism is the intolerance of point of views which is typically characterized by the leftists again nowadays by censoring EVERYONE who got anti-immigration views (Illegam Muslim wave), national conservatism & nationalist views (as people who actually love their country & opposed to multiculturalism that doesn't work at all) of "racists, xenophobes" etc. Actual censorship took place by banning people like Candace Owen, Sargon of Akkad (Twitter) etc. from the big social media techs companies, to hide their embarass. Fascism originally didn't have a specific political position. Before spreading your mainstream media fake news & your defamations, go read some decent alternative media. You should wonder WHY mainstream media actually got very poor ratings & why they're so unpopular, & why there are more & more people who are mistrustful of them. And finally, you've ironically become what you desperately claim to fight: https://ukusablog.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/the-nazi-party-was-a-left-wing-liberal-elite-progressive-political-correctness-movement" - New00100

   " the opponents of the governing party make every effort to maintain defamation, thus every such attempts should be reverted, Misplaced Pages cannot be the battleground of the recent pre-election campaigns, shall it be Fidesz or any other party." - KIENGIR

   "Communists Socialists are only good on lying (i.e. 2006 protests), crying & bitching. I'd like to remind those ignorants that the MSZP got Communist roots, that it is a party formed from the fall of Communism to succeed that same Communist party. If those immature kids got time to spam their shit propaganda, they should spend it on changing Jobbik position "from center to far-right" due to how their current leadership is swapping MASSIVELY to the left liberal block, as it was stated both by Fidesz & the new right-wing party "Our Home Movement"." - New00100

   "yes many of the English sources coming from opposition media are often twisting the words or qualify the real happenings differently as they happened." - KIENGIR

   "Political position changes: We don't need your "far-right" change that comes from mainstream media & whose usage frequency is highly questionable" - New00100

   "“A campaign of disinformation against Hungary has been going on for eight years; it has been built on a narrative that is perfectly suited to ensuring that people who want to find out about Hungary from traditional media get a totally different picture of the country than is the reality”, State Secretary for International Communications and Relations Zoltán Kovács declared.

   Speaking at an event to launch the report published by media observer Médianéző entitled Still Against a Headwind - Hungary’s International Media Image 2018, Mr. Kovács said: “It is pointless trying to reposition ourselves against a narrative that has already placed us in the corner, and which has painted an image of us that we know very well from the international press. The most and best that we can do is to stick to the narrative that we tell about ourselves, he added.

   “The story and statements we tell about ourselves (…) are definitely closer to reality than the narrative that is being spread about us, for instance in the Western European press”, he said. “There is no better proof of this than the three consecutive two-thirds majority victories at the parliamentary elections, and the fact that the Fidesz-KDNP party alliance has been leading the popularity lists continuously for thirteen or fourteen years”, he added.

   “The Government’s efforts have been aimed, and are aimed, at providing opportunities. We have made nothing mandatory, (…) we have opened up opportunities that the Hungarian people can take advantage of if they would like (…), and if those work, then everyone can take a step forward”, Mr Kovács stressed.

   “If something didn’t work, the will to correct was always present in the Government”, he noted.

   According to the State Secretary, during the past two to three years, and particularly since the migration crisis, a marked turnaround can be seen in what the press actually thinks about itself. “Western European papers, opinion formers and publicists are engaging in politics. They have become the primary tools and bearers of those political statements that they believe to represent the Western European majority”, he said.

   “This is not the case, and the divide that exists between Western opinion formers, left-wing liberal politicians and ‘consumers who have a sensible view of reality’ is opening to an increasing extent”, he stated."

   "Some of my ancestors were also maltreated during the communist era. What's your point? Why do you think I'm using the Soviets as an example, because I agree with the discredited Kremlin line? The whole premise of my point is that the arguments being forwarded by Fidesz and by proxy repeated by New00100 and yourself are the same as those that were made by the Communist regimes against their outside critics; the arguments that are now almost universally ridiculed and dismissed. If you'd like a more contemporaneous example, take the Venezuelan government. My assessment stands. I apologise for nothing. Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms." - Jay Hodec

   "NO way, I refuse this again - and I can speak obviously my own behalf - NO, my arguments are not by any means same of any "Communist regimes" arguments and you commited a very big mistake insisting this again, since you again try to deteriorate from the point! I did not say or agumented that would not be true, or would not be factual or neutral (while the Communist regimes have generally twisted information, lied, manipulated and caused a horror to the people), thus you assesment does NOT stand, it is your personal and mistaken opinion, a shameful and offensive one. It is not may fault that there are some media opinions that have overexaggerated opinions that are many times far from the reality (and may be "universally ridiculed and dismissed" as well in some particular cases and the Venezuelan Government and Fidesz have zero connection to each other, cannot be compared by any means)

    "Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms." -> This you should address to yourself, when you started to deteriorate from the topic and create a pseudo West (East?, North? South?) conflict and with an unprofessional way you made a horrible accusation, insisting a false analogie with the Communists. This is definately not as "legitimate criticism", since all my arguments are standing and are factual and struggling for ultimate neutrality." - KIENGIR

Jay, did you notify the other editor you mentioned?

I provided the diffs to the community, including many that you present here on our behalf, you can be sure, the whole context they will check, don't worry about this, they can see the talk page as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC))

You mean New00100? I'm not sure, you're free to ping him if you want.

Look, I'm really sorry you feel this way about this issue, however, my intention was never to attack your person or impugn your character per se, and retracting my comment because of how you feel about it would be disingenuous on my part because I simply do not believe that I have done anything to offend you. The core of my argument - and I may have phrased it too forcefully since I'm writing the replies on the go, but nonetheless - is that the argument put forth by some governments that most internal and external criticism is rooted in political animus and pure political power-games and propaganda is deeply problematic and has a rich history of disingenuous use by abusive political forces. I was trying to illustrate this contradiction in your argument by appealing to a more notorious historical example, and one that you may likely find particularly jarring since it's in many ways the ideological polar opposite of the one in question. I hoped this would illustrate the arguments you advance is fraught with issues, and that one should always be weary of adopting it, even if one may view it more favorably in certain circumstances due to e.g. personal proclivities, societal factors, etc.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean New00100. Excuse me it is your obligation to notify the user about this discussion, since you mentioned the user, per our policies.

On the further, even if you claim it was not your intention and you do not believe that you offended me, I explained several times why it is an obvious and insulting offence, I am sorry you still don not see this. About your description of the core of your argument, I know this phenomenon, but it has completely zero connection to my argumentation. I perceive, experience, research, assess like a machine with targeting the infinite neutrality possible. Anyone may check any of my argumentation, not just generally but many discussion when we went into the details, simply nobody may show any evidence I went against factual things, on the contrary I identified mistakes, inacurracies is many contents, as I am interested in an accurate and neutral encyclopedia, as everybody should.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Am I supposed to ping him here, or on the talk page? Is there some guideline that mandates this?

"that bad faith is the proposed analogy here with the Communist regime (that would imply lying/twisting and other horrible things)"

No, no. I'm sure some Soviet communist supporters actually believed the party line and parroted it faithfully. There are plenty leftists that genuinely believe that the Hong Kong protests are a CIA propaganda ploy and that concentration camps in the Xinjiang region are a fabrication by the "Western" media, likewise with food shortages/human rights abuses in Venezuela ... I'm not impugning your character, I'm impugning your argument.

"Please also have in mind, he just declared the third time of feeling NO apoligize on the talk page and I did not start personalization towards him, so excuse me...(accusing with Communist alike crimes is such a casting aspersion that are really may be considered as "redflag")."

I do not feel I have wronged you in any way. How can I apologise if I do not even understand what part exactly you feel offended by?

I'm not accusing anyone of "Communist alike crimes". I'm saying that the Eastern Communist states (and their supporters) labelled all criticism in "1st world media" as ideological propaganda (either mendaciously or fully believing), and that Fidesz appears to be following the same approach. If you find the former troubling, you should also reconsider the latter.

Facts are a difficult thing. I'm sure that Michael Parenti would find our position on the Communist states deeply counterfactual.

Regards. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

You're required to notify the on their talk page - you can use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Pinging in not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Jay,

I do not feel I have wronged you in any way. How can I apologise if I do not even understand what part exactly you feel offended by? -> Still this is the major problem, since none of my arguments are analogous with believed the party line and parroted it faithfully thus impugning my arguments with this is ridiculous & unprofessional. I just draw the attention to inaccuracies, corrected mistakes, supported neutrality, but you've made harsh accusations towards to editors in a an unacceptable way. Your major problem is since my arguments holds, you seem to only try to draw mistaken analogies an appear them in a negative manner, however - as it has been demonstrated more times - on more degree your analogie is failed.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

• Comment WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and I'd doubt the good faith of a person arguing that Victor Orban's party, widely referred to as a far-right party, is not far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Simonm223, did you entirely read all te discussion of the talk page, that is still ongoing and have been discussed also without me more times in the past? How could you doubt my good faith? Because I recognize mistakes, falsities, inaccurate information and serve ultimate NPOV? Can you demonsrate that any of my statements on the matter was not true or observable? Could you make a difference between "widely referred" and "factual matters"? Did I deny that some sources refer in such manner to the party? NO. The discussion is about something else.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
    • Yes I read it. And then I said what I said. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Frankly I'd concur with Cinderella157 that you should probably withdraw this complaint or face the risk of a WP:BOOMERANG. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, then I have to disagree with you and reject your doubt on my good faith (that is by default). However, factual matters are independent of anyone's faith. Sorry, I don't see this justified, since I did not engage with any personal issues to the editor in the talk page, that he started, I ask you from you a more neutral approach and seriosity. Anyway we were discussing afterwards, he reinforced he had no intention to hurt, bu he has to see what he did is very unprofessional and avoidable. With Cinderella we were discussing on the potential interpretation here of what happened regarding as well everyones's post-reactions, but the complaint was about what happened on the talk page, please do not mix the two, anyway not having even a minor equal weight.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

What I see on the talk page is you taking immediate offense to somebody comparing the demand that preferential weight be given to sources that favour Orban's party to a hypothetical demand that statements about the Soviet Union in the 1980s be sourced to Pravda because you, personally, don't like communism. None of the difs you presented suggest Jay Hodec has ever engaged in personal attacks, and nothing in WP:CIV requires an apology for an imagined slight. With that said there's pretty clear evidence that you tend to escalate matters when disputes are ambiguous. For instance here you were engaged in a dispute about content in Ultranationalism and broke the WP:3RR brightline restoring your preferred version. Your next edit was to warn the other user (who was at 2 reverts by my count at that point) that they were edit-warring if I've misread the article history please feel free to demonstrate it, but this sort of behaviour seems somewhat like WP:BATTLEGROUND while I can find little of that sort of behaviour in Jay's previous history. And so I'll reiterate, I'd suggest you should withdraw this complaint and try to have a thicker skin when editing in articles related to far-right politics. They do tend to be rather... heated areas, as I know from extensive personal experience. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Eta This statement here actually does seem like a personal attack. That you made. Toward another editor, who you described as holding radical left views in response to user page infoboxes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So, you still do not feel that accusing improperly someone's argumentation and compare to inappropriately to former regimes ones (that have well-accepted negative qualifiers are associated and may be interpereted offensive to reflect it to editors) is unprofessional and a deterioration the discussion, instead on commenting on the subject? Your summarization on this issue your own opinion, that I disagree.

On the other case sorry, I did not broke any 3RR, on the contrary the user broke several WP:Rules I did not even one, the resolution is ongoing, as well the user engaged himself in many NPOV issues. It is quite striking you accuse in this issue where I am fully innocent, please analyze more thoroughly WP:BRD, WP:NPOV, the frame of edit warring (necessarily after two reverts), I immediately entered to the talk page that the user ignored, moreover he argued is amisleading way disregarding all the rules (Informing Wikiprojects of problematic issues is recommmened by Wiki officials as has been discussed years ago, it is not any means a personal attack, but an NPOV concern, since the page blanking have been made instantly before the problematic edits). This is such a crystal-clear case, despite you target me in your summarization as someone who'd have guilt. Unaccaptable and after this your neutrality towards this issue is highly dubious, and what you did right now is a true WP:BOOMERANG. (yes, you heavily misread it, the user made 3 reverts next to it's bold addition, it in total four, a deliberate edit warring after multiple warnings, with full ignorance of any resolution process, WP:Battleground stands for him, while I have followed the well-established process with good faith in accordance with administrator recommandations, without harming any rule, sorry!)

Please before making such comments, investigate properly the happenings/issues, beucase you hevaily failed to to that precisely and properly (especially counting the number of reverts, or the knowledge or application of basic WP policies), but I think after this huge fiasco, it is better if you don't turn this discussion away from the real topic/issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

With regard to the Ultranationalism edits I'm reviewing the history here and what I see is that you reverted at Jeff605 at 08:26, 09:47 and 10:36 while Jeff605 reverted at 08:53, 10:13 and 11:20. I will concede that I was wrong that you sent your edit warring warning when they were at two reverts. Your warning was at 11:36. However that doesn't change that you did, in fact, breach the WP:3RR brightline first and did, in fact, engage in personal attacks against them at Wikiproject Hungary per my previous dif. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And regardless, the central point of my statement remains, you have engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour including personal attacks with regard to far-right politics in Eastern Europe, while Jay has not. As such, your inflated complaint about a personal attack suggests you're trying to forward your POV through WP:AN/I which is frowned upon. I'd Support a mild boomerang if anybody feels it appropriate to propose one in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, now you demonstrated you don't understand what means "breaching WP:3RR ans as well the BRD process". Jesus Christ...read please WP:BRD, WP:3RR as well what it means. As a consequence your further argumentation cannot be taken serious, you've totally "lost the ground". The editor you referred after the second revert should stop any activity further on and engage on the talk page, since the official warning get's always later on if the editor do not follow earlier referred WP policies in the talk, when the deliberate state of edit warring get's clear. I entered the talk page even earlier than recommended.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

I mean, I actually noted the precise times of your reversion. There is nothing in WP:3RR about the first revert not counting. Nor does an initial edit constitute a reversion. Furthermore I would suggest that use of even mild expletives such as immediately above is doing nothing to support your case here and would recommend you tone that down. Finally, WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement while WP:3RR is, in fact a rule. As such, WP:BRD does not provide an out for WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And of course, your claim that Jeff605 was edit-warring (when clearly two were tangoing) is neither here nor there for the personal attack you made against them in this edit. And that is what I find principally significant to this action. Jay did not engage in personal attacks against you. But you did engage in personal attacks against Jeff. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, your argumentation does not justify you or disprove my proper conduct of the issue in accordance with the relevant rules and administrator recommendations. Still you cannot count properly, that is a problem, and still you don't interpret and understand WP:3RR properly, that was not breached by me. Per WP:BRD I may conduct a few legitimate reverts, even reinforced by the talk. Moreover, please stop accusing me about personal attacks that I did not do against anyone. Your accusations and lack of AGF, AAGF towards me seems more and more strikingly apparent.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

You are, in fact, mistaken. WP:BRD does categorically not give you the right to exclude your first revert from WP:3RR counts. You did in fact breach the edit warring brightline first. Unless you are saying that some of the edits in the edit war that led to your personal attacks against Jeff were unrelated edits. They certainly doesn't appear to be but if that's the case I'll strike through anything I've said which was factually inaccurate. As I've said before, the most significant point here is that you engaged in personal attacks against Jeff while Jay did not engage in personal attacks against you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the statement I'm saying is a personal attack is he openly advertized his radical left views and involvement on politics. Now as has been discussed many times, even if Jeff believes themself to be a radical leftist (which I honestly doubt based on the infoboxes presented) your use of those infoboxes to attempt and drum up support against their edits on another page definitely constitute a personal attack and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I am confirming that KIENGIR did not, in fact, breach 3RR. In terms of 3RR, they have made two (continuous) reverts at Fidesz and three reverts at Ultranationalism. El_C 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I missed that and will strike through those statements accordingly. I thought I saw a 3rr back and forth at the time stamps I mentioned previously. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije:, please explain to Simonm223 how many reverts needed to breach WP:3RR, since he still cannot countr properly, neither professionally examined the rule, although he seems to have a long WP career. Also explain to him to notifiing a Wikiproject of a problematic POV issue is not a personal attack. Also inform this user if he does not stop the improper rallying against me along with fundemental problems of understanding of basic WP policies and increasing by every comment he is accusing me with personal attacks against Jeff- yes now in plural - than he will be hois by his own petard, if what happened until now would not be enough. To your attention more, the issue this user is referring have been already forwarded to an admin. Thank You (and excuse me pingin you in, but this starts to be a comedy)(KIENGIR (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

El_C, thank you, and excuse me I did not notice the intermediary edits. Getting really tired of this crossfire against me...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

I have struck through my statement that you broke WP:3RR - however I stand by that you engaged in personal attacks on Wikiproject Hungary. And I stand by that Jay has not engaged in any personal attacks against you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I see, as well your opinions I understood. However I have to add I disagree with you on the two matters. Regarding the notification of the Wikiproject, a raised a POV concern to be examined, and did not attack Jeff's person by any means. Regarding Jay, the issue is already overdiscussed. It is good that he made clear he did not wanted to hurt, but I uphold his proposed and comparison was unfair and sudden and may be interpreted in an insulting way, that should be ignored in any WP discussion. I think we should stop here, let other's share their opinion, your's became entirely known.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Agree with Simonm223 that there was no personal attack, and think this should just be closed. If KIENGIR won't drop the stick, maybe closed with a warning. Grandpallama (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169 is wikihounding me

User:Harshil169 is continuing to add deletion tags on every page that I am creating for no rhyme or reason like he did to List of Jain Empires and Dynasties and see my talk page he wants to delete my every page and is continuously wikihounding me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please follow the instruction at the top of this noticeboard and inform Harshil169 that you have filed this report. El_C 06:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

done.... Rishabh.rsd (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am accused and explaining my side here. I contest speedy deletion of the many pages in a single day, I also revert edits those are vandalism and not good for Misplaced Pages. It is regular practice for me and User:Rishabh.rsd is no more exemption in this practice. I had already gave warnings on talk page and explained my all edits in my summary. Administrators can check it.

Now, comes to the topic. This user is adding honorific suffix and prefix like Acharya, Lord, Bhagwan, Swami, Ji (like sir) and Shri; after I explained that this is not practice of Misplaced Pages. Such things can be find 1,2, 3, 4, and 5. These are just example of WP:BIAS and violation of WP:NPOV. Most of his edits are like these. He also added same type of edits in the highly used template of Jainism by adding word Suri and Swami behind it without gaining consensus. It can be find here.

Not only this, he is removing the deletion template from the pages like he did twice at Anti-Jain Sentiments (now deleted) and once at here.

Complain regarding WP:Civility. This user complained that I am wikihounding him but he hid the fact that he called me as hypocrite Talk:Anti-Jain Sentiments. Now, it is deleted but old revisions may be available to admin side. He also told that whether I am in my sense or not at here.-- Harshil 07:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

And this User:Harshil169 didn't mentioned unessecery deletion tags placed on List of Jain Empires and Dynasties and Sanat Kumara Chakravarti. See that page's history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Come on Rishabh.rsd. I already explained why I put deletion templates on the pages you made. Rationale has been explained well in the AfD. And one page Jagathitkarani has already been deleted by admin. So, don't be personal here. Stay on policies. -- Harshil 16:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• My initial impression is that whilst Rishabh.rsd might have reasons to feel harassed, Harshil's continued scrutiny were for entirely legitimate reasons and for the betterment of encyclopedia. ∯WBG 13:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric Thanks for understanding. I learnt lots of things from you. -- Harshil 16:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Rogers Communications LTA once again

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

• 99.253.12.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Sha Tin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Private housing estates in Sha Tin District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hong Kong Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous ANI
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Rogers Toronto Date/EngVar Vanda
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Range block possibility?
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#Long term abuse from a customer from Rogers Communications Canada
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Rogers Communications LTA.
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#LTA of Rogers Communications

It seem the LTA had changed their ip address from 99.251.225.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). But again, EngVar vandalism pattern is unchanged. Also additional cross-wiki vandalism in zh-wiki in zh:國泰航空. Matthew hk (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Another problematic IP range

An IP range originating in France is being used by an editor exclusively to complain that WP:NONAZI is stifling free speech. They tried to delete elements concerning fascist appropriation of free speech (which was derived from the Paradox of Tolerance) here and then went to article talk to complain about this .

Now that alone wouldn't merit attention, but the IP range has recently progressed to making racist statements here. Since the behaviour has escalated from complaints about free speech to actual explicit racism I figured it was time to mention that this IP range is being used for WP:NOTHERE reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

A workable range block seems unlikely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Vodafone India IPv4 vandalism

• 42.106.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
  • 42.106.28.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 42.106.112.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The range is infested with vandals and otherwise poor editors. IP-only range block seems to the only workable response. BTW doesn’t anybody know a LTA with similar signature? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with complex page moves of user pages

Probity22 (talk · contribs) has been moving their user talk page around, presumably in an attempt to change their user name - they have moved the page several times to various unregistered user names (to User, not User talk), and the resulting redirects have been fixed by EmausBot so it's now impossible to revert the moves. I reverted the most recent one, but admin help is needed for the rest. I will of course post a notification of this discussion to Probity22's real talk page, but that will unfortunately mess up the restoration process even more... Probity's old talk page history is currently located at User:Jgvcbl. --bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I've gotten it all sorted with reverting the page moves, merging the relevant page histories, and deleting the redirects. Please let me know if anything doesn't look right. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Probity22: If you need assistance with how to change your username, please see the directions at Misplaced Pages:Changing username. After reading that, if you still need help, you can ask at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards