Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:01, 1 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)

• 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?

User:Ngokevin rapid fire promotional campaign in progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack § Infobox and suspects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chronic disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tapered—please pick one diff and bring it to our attention. I would be interested to see a diff of an edit by Anthony22 that you find particularly problematic. I am not accepting of the notion that "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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now your story changes. You said right here please pick one diff and bring it to our attention. That was done per your request, and now it's a sufficient number of diffs to convince onlookers that the alleged problem exists. Could you please decide on a position and stop moving goalposts?I have already said that insight is available on Anthony22's talk page; have you bothered to take a fair look at that already-existent source of information for your answers? I doubt that meeting your demand for more diffs would satisfy you; if there were a hundred diffs you would simply argue endlessly about whether this or that diff is really problematic and to what degree. The important point is that more than a handful of established editors, acting independently and in good faith, have perceived a problem with Anthony22's copy editing spanning a period of years, and that the multiple complaints have yielded no improvement. That means something. This is not a courtroom, and you are not a defense attorney. You are not making a constructive contribution to this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you were familiar with the long history here, you would know that Anythony22's tendency is to run from criticism. On 13 June 2018, after a week of complaints on his talk page from six (6) experienced editors, he started a wikibreak that lasted until 1 February 2019. He really, really hates engaging with other editors, for example avoiding article talk whenever possible (0.7% of his edits have been in the Talk namespace). His comfort zone is in being left alone to work in isolation instead of as part of the editing community. To any reasonable observer, this is a far more likely explanation than any other for his absence in this discussion, and it's one of the things that might already be understood if people took the time to look at the history on his talk page. Hence my word "insight".This points to another serious flaw in the current ANI system – the implicit assumption that editors completely new to the issue can be better judges of it than those who have dealt with it firsthand for years, based on the little bits of "evidence" that the latter have time to produce, simply because the former frequent ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, it took me a bit to unravel what you said about a serious flaw in ANI, but I think I understand now, and if I do, I think I disagree somewhat. I do not think that there is an "implicit assumption" that AN/I regulars are better equipped to understand and deal with a situation than the people who have experienced it first hand are - although that may appear to be the case. What I believe you're actually seeing is that in a system which functions via WP:CONSENSUS, if the people on the front lines (who know the problems in the long term and at first hand) don't show up to participate in the discussion, then the participants are naturally going to be in significant part ANI regulars. There's no "assumption" that the regulars are smarter or better disposed to decide on the situation, they're merely the people who are there, and consensus has to be based on what the participants in the discussion say.The solution to that flaw is that more people who are aware of the situation from experience need to get over whatever feelings they have about posting on the "dramah boards" and get involved in discussions they are knowledgeable about. That can only improve the quality of the discussion, and, not incidentally, would provide more information for the regulars to chew on, increasing the probability that they will see things the way the front-liners do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last time Anthony22 got this much heat (less heat, actually, since it didn't involve an ANI complaint), he took a 7-month wikibreak (see above). Considering that, the only useful block would be an indefinite one. After some number of months, when he decided to get the block lifted with a pledge to respond to this complaint (How does that work, exactly, after the complaint has long been archived? Would the thread be restored from archive? Would all participants here be notified of the resumption?) I think his response would be predictably much like the few responses we have already seen on his UTP, where little improvement has been realized.The only response I'm interested in hearing is: "I agree not to do any more copy editing," either retiring or following my June 2018 suggestion to choose from the many other ways to contribute to the project in areas sorely in need of more help. An involuntary ban from copy editing would accomplish the same end while being more binding. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, I see he's somewhat active as of yesterday afternoon UTC, so part of my reasoning fails. Nevertheless, an indef block would be no different than a temp block with its lifting conditioned on his agreement to engage, except that it wouldn't automatically expire before he made that agreement.But one needn't look any deeper than his last few days of editing to see some of the problem, and that the problem continues. Edits that are pointless at best, with hare-brained rationales. You don't "ban" an inanimate object; a person is banned. That alone violates the principle that every edit must improve the encyclopedia, and in my estimation it constitutes about half of his editing. Edits that show a lack of awareness of the need to reflect sources. Edits that show a lack of awareness of prior consensus, not because he's new to the article but because he shuns article talk. Mixed in are some good edits, and I've never claimed that he doesn't make any. I've asserted that the bad outweighs the good, hence "net negative", and experience shows that the bad is not going to be reduced via counseling. We generally need to recognize the importance of aptitude in this business, and that not everybody can be good at everything here. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mandruss—you say "escalating blocks would not increase his aptitude for the pure wordsmithing part of copy editing". Is it not possible that escalating blocks would in general influence an editor to think twice before making possibly-problematic edits? This comes down to the opinions of admins so I hope one weighs in here. Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bus stop. I think we have gone around in circles for a bit, and it has been 5-6 days so far with no actual progress being made in any direction. I think it's time for an admin to weigh in and decide what, if anything, they will do to help resolve this issue constructively. If the admins can't or won't intervene at this point, then we should at least get clarity on that as well so that we aren't just spinning our wheels for another week. Michepman (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been here a number of times before. We now have over 6,000 words that no admin has the time to read and absorb, thanks in large part to Bus stop's pointless verbosity, "weird calls for closures", goalpost-moving, failure to hear, and so on, all resulting from a lack of a moderator with teeth. If an admin looks at all, they will perform a quick scan for the large number of diffs sufficient to warrant a topic ban. Not seeing that for the reason I've explained previously, they will decline to act. Equally likely is that the thread will just be ignored until it's archived. Either way, the years-long Anthony22 problem will remain unresolved. Having already cost a considerable amount of editor time, it will continue to cost editor time, and someone will eventually become fed up enough to open another complaint here. And then it will cost yet more editor time here, probably resulting in no admin action again. 'Round and 'round and 'round we go, all to avoid asking one editor to find a different way to contribute. As I've indicated, this page is seriously broken. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user:Mztourist's disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ortizesp and page moves (again)

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

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

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

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

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

You have been using the 'technical request' function, which is not if you just think the name should be changed - as its name suggests it is for technical moves, for example if you are undoing a dodgy page move but cannot because you do not have sufficient rights. You have been gaming the system (innocently or not). How many articles have you moved using that page as you have admitted here? You have been told repeatedly in the past to use 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)

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangeblock necessary

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

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

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

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

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

Averette and the Cuban sandwich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Range block for category vandal

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

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

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

Disruptive IP editing at Hippie and now Hipster

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

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

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

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

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

And it is Hipster (contemporary subculture), not Hipster. Liz 23:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained campaign of misattribution of views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Static IP making nothing but unsourced changes to population figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bot-like IP edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MarnetteD - I agree. ~Oshwah~ 22:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism inspite of warnings

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

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

159.146.0.0

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

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

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

Process violations and canvassing at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed solution - It seems like the core issue is that

POV push and destruction of page

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

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

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

CentralTime301

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

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

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

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

CentralTime301 Why did you add a protection template to an article that is not currently protected? FYI adding the template does not protect the article from being edited. Protection can only be placed on an article by an admin and you have to file a WP:RFPP for that to happen and, as mentioned above, they have to be legitimate requests. This does look like a WP:BATTLEGROUND action on your part. MarnetteD|Talk 06:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Bill Josephs and Palestine

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

 Investigating... ~Oshwah~ 05:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards