Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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

User:Dommiraubi continues disruptive behavior despite previous warnings

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

Dommiraubi continues to edit without communicating via edit summary or talk page despite warning from OlEnglish (talk · contribs) as seen here. examples include:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Dommiraubi has previously been reported and blocked for this behavior here. Dommiraubi has also once again used another wiki article as a reference ([4]), something I brought to admin attention before. -- Bait30  ^Talk? 05:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I found these repeated edits at K. S. Gopalakrishnan (musician) where Dommiraubi adds the same link to an article as a reference: 1 + 2 + 3. The last of those was on 30 November 2019. Is there something more recent? I see the creation of a new article with a circular reference on 22 December 2019. Previous ANI reports were: August 2019 and December 2019. An indef might be appropriate if there is no undertaking soon. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that Dommiraubi has continued to edit, and continued to fail to communicate, but their edits since their most recent warning appear to be constructive. This edit uses a weak-looking source to report the subject's recent death, but I was able to find further confirmation of this by searching online, so I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on your adminship Rosguill! I just want to add that yes, Dommiraubi frequently makes constructive edits, especially in regards to recent deaths. One thing I did notice is that most of Dommiraubi's disruptive edits relate to Classical Indian music and playback singers such as [5] and [6]. Maybe a topic ban would isolate the disruptive edits from the constructive edits? Idk, just a suggestion.  Bait30  ^Talk? 03:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

​​​Does anyone have any thoughts on my suggestion? I'm still relatively new here so I'm not sure exactly what the proper actions would be. However, Dommiraubi has shown that they can still make the same type of disruptive and unexplained edits despite admin warning, so it feels strange to simply ignore it just because he/she also happens to make constructive edits.  Bait30  ^Talk? 05:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Bait30, sanctions on Wikipedia are generally preventative, not punitive, and last I checked Dommiraubi hasn't made an unconstructive edit since this thread was opened. At this point, I think it's ok to take no action, but if they make another unconstructive edit while this is open, or if they're brought to ANI again for similar issues after this discussion is closed, then I think a block is unfortunately in order on WP:CIR grounds. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks!  Bait30  ^Talk? 06:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding dubiously-sourced material despite repeated requests to stop

• Martinthewriter (talk · contribs)

This editor showed up last month and reinserted highly dubious content[7] (in one case based on a source that clearly got the information in question from the Wikipedia article) that had been removed from the article Mottainai almost two years earlier by a consensus on the talk page. He then edit-warred over it[8] while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the talk page (Ctrl+F "personal opinion" here). He threatened to canvas !votes with a biased RFC question, which I told him not to do so without consulting me but he did anyway.

The RFC ended a month later with minimal uninvolved participation, but most favouring the replacement of what was there with either a fuller and better-sourced etymology section or something like the bare-bones etymology that was there following the February 2018 discussion. (The simple !vote count was tainted somewhat by two bad-faith editors who showed up because of their history with me, but clearly had not actually looked at the content.)[9] MTW then tried to reopen the RFC despite it being obvious no one new was coming to support him (literally no one had supported his "version A" in three weeks, with almost everyone new supporting "version C"). My only guess as to his motivation for this move would be to make me and others have to wait another month to remove the dubious content from the article. I reverted, for which action Edwardx (talk · contribs) thanked me (so I can only assume my action was procedurally sound; if not, I apologize). MTW's next action was to restore the dubious content.[10] I originally drafted this report several days ago, which had seemingly convinced him to drop it for the time being, but he returned on Christmas Eve to renew his bogus accusation that my edits (accurate representation of reputable scholarly sources) constitute "personal opinions".

It seems like there is no end in sight, so could someone please block the user? Or do we need to have a TBAN discussion? The editor has done basically nothing on the project for the last 45 days except troll me (if you read through the discussion it should be obvious that he isn't pushing a consistent POV; he just wants content out when I want it in -- Ctrl+F "etymology" to see how his view changed exactly when mine did -- and wants it in when I want it out, even when overwhelming talk page consensus, an honest reading of what the sources say, and simple common sense support my view) so an editing restriction seems like the wrong move here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, without speculating on why this didn't work, I'm just going to say I withdraw it and am taking some time off from editing Wikipedia. I wish you all a merry Christmas, and possibly a happy New Year if my break lasts that long. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm unwithdrawing the above. Of the relatively large number of uninvolved editors, only two have expressed substantial disagreement with me, and of those two one has only 300 edits to his name and the other is apparently nursing a grudge against me for some issue his repeatedly refused to elaborate on. (The latter also has a history of disruptively ignoring the substance of ANI reports with bogus "content dispute" dismissals, at least in specialized/scholarly topic areas like this one.) I only retracted the above in the hopes that the reprisals would stop and the thread would be closed, and after well over two days this has not happened -- and at this point it would be unfair if the opinions of Ryk, Reyk, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, SN54129 and Bonadea were dismissed just because at one point early on I was tired of being harassed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• comment From the talk page, I can definitely see major problems with Hijiri88's tendentious editing. He's quite dismissive of the side that has the facts on their side. Hard to say what is best to do, but there's no cause to sanction Martinthewriter here. Krow750 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Reasonable minds may differ. In this case, "has the facts on their side" is clearly in dispute. - Ryk72 ^talk 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

I argue that Hijiri88 should not continue to edit the article on mottainai. My edits prove that mottainai is a word of Buddhist origin, and I don't think that's as controversial as Hijiri88 claims. One editor said, concerning the Buddhist etymology, "Any fool, including myself, can type mottainai and Buddhist into Google Scholar and see that it's, at least, a significant minority view." The bigger problem here is Hijiri88's "battleground mentality".

The admin Floquenbeam recommended a request for comment to solve the issue[11], so I created a request for comment based on the only two versions of the article that were available at the time. Most respondents preferred to keep the info on Buddhist etymology, but Hijiri88 skewed the request for comment by threatening anyone who disagreed with the highly dubious edits he was making. Instead of productive dialogue, he keeps telling me "I will be requesting that you be blocked" and "the only people who could not see this after it is pointed out to them would be paid editors with a vested interest in spreading misinformation." He told Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) "I will be requesting that your previous one-year block be reinstated, this time indefinitely" and "So, you're doubling down on your revenge-trolling?". When IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs) made useful commentary, he said, "Stop trolling" and "I will ask you to take this last chance to demonstrate your good faith by retracting your !vote". He unjustifiably told Margin1522 (talk · contribs) "if you don't edit Wikipedia anymore, why are you even here? Why not go violate copyright on some other website?"

Also, Hijiri88 was warned about edit warring[12], but is still reverting now with offensive edit summaries.[13][14]

I think the talk page discussion establishes Hijiri88's problematic original research and misreading of sources, but it becomes a big issue when he uses harassment to impose these changes on the article. I propose that this user no longer be allowed to edit this article.Martinthewriter (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hijiri88's collaboration on Wikipedia has been troubled to say the least, so to come here demanding a straight block of another editor is going to require some investigation. At the moment what I am seeing is a straight content dispute and the venue for that is WP:DRN. Or we can handle this here and now with an iBan for both editors and a T-ban for them both to the disputed article. Whatever, I'm not going to issue any blocks or untangle this mess to establish who is right and who is wrong - let DRN do that first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: An IBAN wouldn't resolve the issue, though. Multiple other editors (not pinging for fear of canvassing accusations, but their names are Imaginatorium, Curly Turkey, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, Ryk72 and HAL333) have already voiced support for my position (the article should summarize the relevant scholarship and not include misrepresentation or citation of unreliable sources) -- does MTW need to be banned from interacting with them as well?

A one-way IBAN might prevent MTW from trolling me on this or other articles further, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that he intends to follow me to other articles, so a page-ban would be better.

And what good would DRN do that the RFC hasn't already? If I voluntarily change my position to accommodate MTW (as I already did), he will just change his position to whatever the opposite one of my current one is. All DRN typically does is allow both parties to a dispute to express their opinions, maybe get one new constructive outside opinion, with no solid dispute resolution method if those opinions are intractable, and MTW has already demonstrated that he is more interested in disagreeing with me than in pushing any particular content point (I have made concession after concession on issues like the length of the etymology section, the discussion of Buddhism, and the citation of Siniawer, but he has consistently shifted his position so the argument can continue).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Martinthewriter isn't the one with a long history of unsociable behaviour. I wasn't talking about a one-way ban, I was talking about keeping you both away from each other and both of you away from the article. Traditionally iBans and T-bans need some community input but If I were you Hijiri88, I wouldn't belabour the issue too hard otherwise there might be a sting in the tail which an admin can handle unilaterally. Take it to DRN first and see what they say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I figured someone might bring up my "long history", so for what it's worth I have filed a grand total of two ANI reports in the last year.[15][16] I am not sure exactly what history of mine you are referring to, but my only negative interaction directly with you in the past, as far as I remember, was in the 2013 Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) issue,[17] when, if I recall, my "unsociable behaviour" was mostly me expressing frustration that you were being an irresponsible admin and refusing to look at the evidence of disruptive behaviour that was presented to you.

In this case I have been busting my ass for the better part of two months trying to accommodate this editor while also maintaining the integrity of our article and its sourcing standards, but this approach has not been working. If you are not actually going to click on the diffs provided, I would ask why you are even commenting here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Martinthewriter's proposal, which boils down to topic-banning Hijiri88 from the mottainai article, if I understand correctly. I'm not going into all of the details why (will just elaborate four points below). I've largely stopped my attempts to improve the mottainai article, awaiting the time that Hijiri88 would no longer be editing that article (and its talk page), while as long as that continues any attempt to improve the article is futile. Here are my points:
  1. Despite my warning (earliest one here), Hijiri88 continued to WP:BLUDGEON every participant in the RFC on article versions who happened to not agree with them (all listed diffs after I had warned Hijiri88 to stop bludgeoning):
     • Bludgeoning my "bludgeon" comment
     • Bludgeon on Martinthewriter's first comment after I gave the "bludgeon" warning
     • Bludgeoning IvoryTower123's first contribution to the RfC
     • Bludgeoning Levivich's !vote in the RfC, piling on after Nishidani had already replied to Levivich's position
     • Bludgeon after SMcCandlish seemed not too sure about his original !vote (that first !vote had been favourable to Hijiri88's position, so had not been bludgeoned)
     • Bludgeon after HAL333's first contribution to the RfC
  2. Hijiri88's continued WP:REFACTORing of what followed after my first !vote in the RfC made a reasonable exchange of ideas quite impossible:
     • Hijiri88 sectioning of what off what followed on my original !vote
     • Hijiri88 adding a new disparaging comment under my original !vote
     • After I had moved that comment to the Discussion area, to join it together with the rest of what followed my original !vote, and after I had extended my original !vote, being requested to comment on some additional versions Hijiri88 blugeoning my extended !vote, and again
     • Hijiri88 moving back his disparaging comment from the Discussion area to immediately under my original !vote
  3. Hijiri88 should have been the last one to assess the outcome of the RfC, yet that's exactly what Hijiri88 did (see Talk:Mottainai#Consensus?), despite the tally not showing that the version which Hijiri88 preferred (and implemented [sic], even edit-warring over it [18], [19]) was what most participants in the RfC would have preferred. Hijiri88 had a very simple workaround for that disparity between the RfC tally and the forced outcome they implemented: call everyone who disagreed with them a troll (see e.g. edit summaries in the edit-warring, links given in previous parenthesis, to force their outcome in mainspace).
  4. Hijiri88 intimated several times, on the article's talk page, that what Eiko Maruko Siniawer had written about mottainai was not correctly represented in Wikipedia's article. Afaics that is indeed the case, and I said so on the article's talk page: "imho the article should give a good summary of the main points of Siniawer's analyses. Siniawer seems a decent author on the topic." It doesn't seem too difficult to write a decent summary of Siniawer's views in the article, and I would volunteer to do so. I can only come to the conclusion that Hijiri88 didn't do so thus far, nor anyone else, and that no matter how long we wait, Hijiri88 is not going to remedy Wikipedia's article in that sense. With Hijiri88's present hold over the article (which can only be remedied by removing them as editor of the article and its talk page afaics) it also seems unlikely that Hijiri88 would allow anyone else (they're consistently called trolls by Hijiri88 remember) to write up such decent summary of Siniawer's views in the Wikipedia article.

There's more I could explain in detail (e.g. Hijiri88's forum shopping, etc, etc), but I think I've made my point. I'd suggest Hijiri88 not to bludgeon this extended comment of mine on this noticeboard, but instead, for instance, demonstrate they can provide a good summary of Siniawer's views on the mottainai topic, which could be used in Wikipedia's mainspace. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, despite my posting a statement of wikibreak on my talk page and my withdrawing this ANI report, others have apparently continued to seize on the chance to badmouth me on ANI. I do still intend to stay away from the site for a few days, and I don't intend to pursue further sanctions given the mess this has become, but I will defend myself against Francis's lies and half-truths if he is going to refuse to retract them. Needless to say, virtually everything in the above comment is either (a) completely untrue or (b) a gross distortion of the truth. Two of the worst examples are addressed here

I didn't "bludgeon" anyone, and responded politely as far as patience would let me to editors who both agreed and disagreed with me -- I will leave it to SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) to dismiss the about untruth that he had become less supportive of my preferred version of the article;

and here

Francis Schonken is not now, nor has he ever been, interested in improving the article, and his taking credit for my proposal to give a fair summary of Siniawer 2014 -- posted almost immediately after I finally gained access to the source -- is disgusting and offensive; I have put hours and hours of painstaking research into building the article, while Francis has made one minor edit to the article almost two years ago[20] and has used that as an excuse to post no less than 18 times on the talk page, mostly making snide remarks about me that have nothing to do with the substance of the article.

Do I need to go through the rest point by point?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The proposed paragraph is largely insufficient as a summary of Siniawer's writing on the mottainai topic, as I said & explained at Talk:Mottainai#Consensus?
2. I'd suggest Hijiri88 stop interpreting and implementing what they call consensus (and usually only reflects their own ideas forced on others), at least as long as ""has the facts on their side" is clearly in dispute" (as Ryk72 put it above).
3. For the time being I see no reason whatsoever to withdraw anything of what I wrote above, instead I'd ask Hijiri88 to go through the entire Talk:Mottainai page and WP:STRIKE whatever denigrating comments they gave there about fellow editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

So ... is anyone going to reinstate Francis Schonken's recently expired year-long block for this blatant IDHT and disruptive pestering? He was essentially blocked for refusing to get the point, and then almost immediately after his block expired he tracked me down and proceeded to not get the point again, as demonstrated by the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Apropos #2, I think that it's clear from Hijiri88's initial post in the "Consensus?" section (and indeed from the question mark itself), that they are asking if a consensus has formed, not declaring that one has formed. I do not see that this is problematic. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 implemented their view on the outcome of the RfC by edit-warring (diffs given above, #3 of my first contribution to this section), whether or not they stated explicitly that that was how they saw the outcome of the RfC – the language they used in the edit summaries of these diffs is explicit enough: anyone thinking otherwise is, in their view, a troll or some such otherwise negligible contributor. That's far below what is expected from a contributor by behavioural policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I see a gap of some days between the start of the "Consensus?" section and those edits, and note that during that time at least two other editors opined that there had been a consensus reached, and that it favoured the version implemented.[21][22] - Ryk72 ^talk 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "I see a gap (etc)" – what are you trying to say: that it is OK to call co-editors trolls because there is some sort of gap in time? No, that is not a justification – it is just wriggling to find a reason to defend the indefensible: Hijiri88's behaviour was far below what is acceptable per Wikipedia's behavioural policies. I've given the diffs, read the edit summaries of these diffs: unacceptable, period. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No. It was implied that the editor had unilaterally declared a consensus and implemented their preferred version. I do not believe the evidence supports such. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Francis, your own behaviour (including what could be politely referred to as trolling due to the absence of any conceivable good-faith alternative -- worse descriptions for the same behaviour could, depending on interpretation, include "far-right nationalist POV-pushing", "deliberate battleground behaviour" and "stalking") has been far, far worse, and is especially surprising coming from someone who recently came off a year-long block that had been put in place for refusing to get the message of a previous long block that had expired only 11 days prior.

You can either stop engaging in behaviour for which "trolling" is the most civil possible description, or you can stop trying to get people sanctioned for desperately trying to assume good faith even long after you've drained all their patience: you cannot have it both ways.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal. Clearly inequitable. In so far as there is blame to be apportioned, and I am not yet convinced that sanctions of any kind are warranted, it would be grossly unfair for it to be laid entirely at the feet of this one editor. They have outlined clear reasons as to why content should or should not be included; opposing editors appear to have failed to engage with those reasons. - Ryk72 ^talk 20:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  Re. "opposing editors appear to have failed to engage with those reasons" – the main reason for that is quite ostensibly Hijiri88 behaviour towards fellow editors (see above): if they can't write two paragraphs in a reply to an editor they disagree with without lashing out at such fellow editor for being a troll, being otherwise incompetent or whatever, it is Hijiri88 who buries reasonable discussion in a marinade of rationale (i.e. the "ad hominem" rationale) which one should not engage with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No. I don't think so. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hijiri found himself alone against several editors who have a minor, negligent or zero competence in Japanese, let alone Japanese scholarship. He has proved by sedulous source scrutiny to be right in most cases on the talk page, but finds himself outvoted. It's true his style is often annoyingly bludgeoning, and I have often remonstrated with him to not waste such enormous efforts on arguing with people who have no intention of listening, esp. when their competence is just googling key words and reading around a bit without an indepth knowledge of the contexts. I do wish Hijiri would stop wasting his and my, for one. fucking time by allowing himself to be sucked into useless TLDR talk pages. But, you know with him, that any page's sourcing will be minutely checked, even to the extent of him making library searches to ascertain exactly what primary sources say, as opposed to what skimpy unprofessional secondary sources report. I can't say that of most editors who get into disputes on this topic area with him. He really however should take a break and think over why anyone would want to waste their lives arguing in defense of the obvious when it is not going to run on this or that page due to the contingencies of random curiosity by editors visiting it. It's up to him to wake up and the personal cost of dedication to minutiae on Wikipedia, when he will often be overruled by disattentiveness. He should not be punished by a rackety arbitration process not aware of what is at stake, simply because he happens to be right but is ignored by editors who dislike his argumentative attitude, and don't evaluate precisely the value of hgis input on articles. It's all very Framish, if on a minor scale. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose very strongly. Hijiri is competent, which is (or ought to be) the most important thing here, and I fail to see anything other than pretty mild expressions of very understandable frustration in what is linked and quote above. Also, what Ryk72 and Nishidani says. --bonadea contributions talk 11:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• 'Oppose per Ryk. ——SN54129 11:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RANDY. Reyk _YO! 12:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both proposals, because a block isn't how we handle such matters (the OP was a bit over the top), but this is nothing like a WP:BOOMERANG (Francis Schonken's counter-proposal is even more off-kilter). A topic-ban might be appropriate for Martinthewriter. This kind of says it all: "My edits prove that mottainai is a word of Buddhist origin". One's edits don't prove anything; sources do, and the sources on the matter are not in agreement. I arrived at that article in response to a WP:FRS RfC notice, and have no particular interest in the topic. A review of the talk-page activity demonstrates that Martinthewriter has been rather tendentious about it, and only wants to accept the view in particular sources (WP:CHERRYPICKING). As for Francis Schonken's big rant up there (and continued below), it's obviously motivated by old-history animosities, and someone just returning from a quite lengthy block is in no position to be taken seriously in criticizing others' behavior, and it's hypocritical to label Hijiri88 as combative and ad hominem in the same breath as spinning his every post as "bludgeoning", over and over again like a chant. While I agree with H88's decision to take a wikibreak, maybe F.S. needs one as well. H88 is correct that F.S. is misrepresenting what the diffs show. For example, I did not waffle at all on my support for "version C", I simply added (after "Version E" was posted) that "Version E" might be acceptable, with certain changes, while still explicitly preferring "Version C."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I wouldn't mind Martin getting a TBAN or a PBAN. I just think it's unnecessary red tape (how many usernames taking up space at WP:RESTRICT belong to SPAs or editors who have since been indefinitely blocked or site-banned?) for an editor who is not so much pushing a particular POV as changing his positions constantly in order to be as annoying as possible to the editors he doesn't like. To give another example (separate from the "etymology" one given above): the "personal opinion" thing doesn't actually help in advancing the far-right nationalist POV most of his article edits lean toward, but he has repeated it seven times nonetheless. Most of my historic edits in the "Japanese nationalism" area have seen me on the other side, as Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture will attest, so Martin knows my personal opinion actually has nothing to do with it -- he has just been repeating the comment for sole purpose of annoying me, and while a page ban would ameliorate the problem it likely wouldn't solve it, as Martin would either follow me to a different article (I've written hundreds) or find a different editor to badger. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OP on wikibreak

Hijiri88, the OP of this ANI section announced their wikibreak, just before editing this noticeboard at 07:52, with a

Fuck it. ... [23]

Imho a sad spectacle underlining the contempt which the editor blatantly shows towards Wikipedia and its editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• That's a pretty imaginative interpretation. Reyk _YO! 16:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• My interpretation is that Hijiri88 realized they had lost perspective and that they were thrashing about hurtfully and really need a breather. I think they sometimes get a little overwrought, but that they care deeply and that makes it worse. Perhaps they just need a vacation.-- Deepfriedokra 08:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• After their last comment above (BTW, just after I suggested they make content discussions a little less ad hominem), I'd say: definitely needs a break. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Re: "That's a pretty imaginative interpretation" – Indeed it is. While H88 can be abrasive, so can F.S., including in this very thread. In my experience, H88 is deeply committed to the encyclopedia's accuracy, and is the furthest thing from "contempt[ous] ... toward Wikipedia". Like some of the rest of us (myself included), H88 does not suffer fools or PoV-pushers lightly. Any contempt that H88 evidences is in that direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Someone close this now, please. The OP has struck his complaint and proven yet again that not even in this season of goodwill is he able to participate civilly and without personal attacks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Kudpung, I would appreciate it if you struck the above offensive and groundless remark about me. hI was forced to come back and address the personal attacks that were made against me. I can understand if you are not going to either refrain from commenting on ANI threads without clicking on the diffs or actually click the diffs and act accordingly, but to attack an editor like this is clearly inappropriate, whatever the calendar date. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note I've unstricken my complaint, given that Kudpung has refused to comply with my request that he withdraw the above personal attack while the (worse) attacks from Francis have continued, and more than two days have passed without any sign of the thread being closed, but with other editors showing up and, almost uniformly, agreeing with my complaint (or at least disagreeing with Francis/Martin), who probably shouldn't have their commentary ignored just because two days ago I was too tired and gutless to defend myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• I second the proposal to close this. Keeping it open serves no useful purpose, and hopefully the discussion so far has shown people that, however frustrating it might be, even if an editor is in the right consensus might go the other way. That's just something we need to accept, and get on with more important things in life - in my case playing with my baby grandson. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a balance, however, between WP:TRUTH and WP:ENC, and the latter is ultimately more important. See WP:FALSECONSENSUS and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. It is not okay for a broken pseudo-consensus to result in WP distributing misinformation. It may not need a particular editor to address it, especially in a hotheaded mood, but it does need to be addressed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

    FWIW, that last sentence is exactly why I came here; if Kudpung or Krow750 is willing to monitor the article and keep Martin and Francis in check (and keep this bogus abuse of sources out of the article), I would be very happy to step away. But given that, as a direct response to this ANI discussion, Francis is now threatening to distort the article further (by dismissing the premier dictionary of the Japanese language as a source for a dictionary definition), and Kudpung has essentially denied that there is an issue with these editors' content edits, I'm reluctant to do so. (Hundreds of articles written by the blocked editor Enkyo2 still cite an unreliable source more than six years after Kudpung refused to recognize the issue with that editor based on his own unexplained assumption of bad faith on my part -- more than six years later, exactly the same thing has been happening here!) I really don't understand why the community can't be bothered page-banning an editor who has engaged in nothing but disruptive behaviour on the article for a month and a half so I don't have to do this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

    The "fate of the article and its contents" matter, as it were, doesn't strike me as an ANI (disciplinary) issue, but more of a WP:RSN or WP:NORN one. As for the first part (the hounding thing), that would be a disciplinary matter but would need more evidence than problems at one article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet more misrepresentation of sources

Another source has been found that explicitly contradicts the content Martin has been trying to include in the article despite his having previously claimed the opposite. If there ever was a "content dispute", it ended a month ago when it was first found that Martin was misquoting sources: now the only question is what to do about it. SMcCandlish suggested that he might be in favour of a page-ban (or topic ban?), and I would be amenable to that. I still think that this is not a case of tendentious POV-pushing in a particular topic area but rather targeted trolling (given the flip-flopping on certain points mentioned above) and would support a block for the edit-warring, IDHT, willful misrepresentation of sources, etc. (anything from a one-day block to an indefinite one). But again, I'm open to other suggestions and would support a page ban or other kind of editing restriction if others still disagree with me on this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Trout them all. Presenting religiously mottainai as if there was something worth the trouble, is a joke. Using a Japanese word to change a banality into some mysterious and ineffable concept, is only a promotional trick. This is for Martinthewriter, Francis Schonken etc. And then, why trouting also Hijiri88 ? For such a poor defense of what was obvious from the beginning. Don't mottainai our precious time with such a bludgeoning quarrel about a non-existing concept. Striking all of this shameful article is not what can be suggested here. But this is not an argument against the suggestion itself. Pldx1 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Sorry to bother you (merry Christmas, by the way!), but would you please block the above editor (or at least strike/collapse his comment and warn him) for violating your repeated warnings to him to stop hounding me? He hasn't edited ANI in eight months (and has hardly edited English Wikipedia in four months), so there's very little room for AGF in this case. That plus the fact that he is an anti-Japanese Korean nationalist who in this case is essentially defending editors pushing a Japanese nationalist POV just because in this case the latter are fighting with me ("don't ban them, just trout them -- and trout Hijiri too!") makes it really obvious that the above cannot be justified. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Francis Schonken's edits

Given the massive number of problems with Francis Schonken's recent rewrite of the text in question, I think a reasonable case could be made that he also needs to be TBANned or at least page-banned. Not only has he repeatedly referred to his obviously highly problematic rewrite (including such howlers as Mottainai is the classical Japanese terminal form mottainashi. and multiple needlessly inserted grammatical errors) as either an "improved version" or "a vast improvement" or "an improvement of ... two paragraphs" (Ctrl+F in this section, but see also this edit summary) but he even briefly edit-warred over its inclusion pending talk page discussion despite a large swath of editors (well over half of those who commented in the RFC) having already explicitly supported the inclusion of the text he was removing/bowdlerizing (contrast making a change for demonstrative purposes and then immediately self-reverting for talk page discussion[24]). Add on to this his adding a pointy WP:ONESOURCE template to the section[25] despite my having already explained to him that I consulted multiple sources to verify that the information in the one explicitly cited source was accurate[26] (he even admitted that he hadn't bothered to read the message where I said I had consulted multiple sources) -- this kind of WP:CIR behaviour is something I have literally not seen since User:Rochelimit -- an Indonesian editor with poor English who eventually had to be blocked because he wouldn't stop copy-pasting from sources -- and is quite unbecoming of someone who has been here as long as Francis has, let alone someone who has been here as long as Francis has and who, like Francis, just recently came off a very long block (which had to be implemented for IDHT behaviour and edit-warring not dissimilar to what is displayed on the mottainai talk page) and should be on his best behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this is not an isolated occurrence, as I've noticed similar problems with his edits going back years ago in unrelated topic areas that were also, apparently, outside his area of expertise.[27][28][29] My having been the one to notice these was apparently what prompted Francis to show up here and here (apparently his first interest in the present article), and was almost certainly why he appeared at the present RFC in the first place (no bot notified him of the RFC). (Actually my first extended interaction with him was here, where he was quite openly advocating for "That source doesn't verify that content" to be rejected as a rationale for removing cited-but-unsourced content -- an extreme position that should send up red flags for anyone who reads it -- and in fact he was openly advocating for the inclusion of such "cited-but-unsourced" content here, and seems to still be doing so.) Given that this editor is apparently hounding me, and his hounding has been disrupting the article and talk namespaces, I think it would be fair to TBAN him from Japanese topics in general (my normal area of interest, and the area where he has shown the least ability to read specialist sources even in English), but a page-ban from Mottainai and a final warning about Japanese topics in general would be worthwhile. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like this is not going to stop. Hijiri88 has thus far not stricken any ad hominems and has discovered my user talk page to retaliate ([30], [31]). Would appreciate some advice how to handle this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to make more of an effort to collaborate with your fellow editors Francis. I've noticed you tend to have a "It's got to be my way" approach, and this leads to problems. (as your block log will attest to.) Work on being open to compromise and listen to other editors with an ear toward the idea that they may offer good suggestions as well. — Ched (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Prehistoricplanes

• Prehistoricplanes (talk · contribs)

As discussed here, the user has been disruptively been editing several Template:Taxonomy, which is highly problematic as this affects many articles using automatic taxoboxes. Upon reversion, the user began replacing the automatic taxoboxes with manual ones with his opinions on taxonomy (such as here). The user has continued to ignore attempts at discussion, and displays no willingness to cooperate. User has a history of creating questionable claims on articles with unreliable sources without justification. Suggest a 1 week block for disruptive editing, can extend to a topic ban on animal articles if disruptive editing continues afterwards. @Peter coxhead, Lythronaxargestes, and IJReid:   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support ban I have tried to engage with this user, but with no success. A ban seems the only answer. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support both the action and duration. The user needs to understand what processes have to go down before making major edits to some high-profile taxonomy articles. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Can those templates be WP:TPROT instead? They look to be rarely edited and probably don't need to be edited without good reason anyway. I know there are tons of templates [32], but a bot could do it. If the user responds to this ANI maybe sanctions can be avoided. Let's wait to see if they respond. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Template protecting all taxonomy templates seems to be a bad idea to me. They need to be updated whenever taxonomic revisions happen, and while that's not too often per taxon (and thus per separate template), the number of taxa that get revised, synonymized, moved to different tribes, subtribes, subfamilies, etc. each year is pretty massive. Template protection for the highest ranks makes sense (there's relatively few of those and they don't change that often), and maybe semi-protection or extended-confirmed protection for the rest, but not t-prot for all of 'm. Additionally, a lot of those templates do still need references, or need better references than what's there. Making it even harder for people to correct that means they probably won't get filled/improved. AddWittyNameHere 20:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That wouldn't help in this case, as the user just removes the automatic taxobox from articles (e.g., I cancel automatic taxobox because Gorgonopsia dont is broader group Theriodontia). Note they made two edits to {{Chordata}} after this case was started, but haven't responded here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The user does not understand anything about due process or collaborating with other editors, and I don't think they will learn the soft way. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• There is no need to discuss a ban. While an indefinite block may be warranted, a ban is not needed for this level of problem. I will warn the user that they need to explain how they will avoid problems in the future, bearing in mind the following: (1) In a comment (26 November 2019) Prehistoricplanes (talk · contribs) stated that they are French user fr:User:LoiDavid2307171. That user was indefinitely blocked on 14 March 2019 ("Compte créé pour vandaliser"); (2) These three edits at User talk:Prehistoricplanes#Source show that Prehistoricplanes is not able to communicate effectively in English. An indefinite block will follow if there is no satisfactory resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Prehistoricplanes made another contentious edit without discussion. I have indefinitely blocked them to prevent further disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Endless POV-pushing with edit warring.

• Mikola22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• South Slavs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Adding of controversial information: [33]

Reverts to push it to the article:

• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]

The problem is that he thinks he is correcting some kind of "injustice" or something like that: somewhere there is some kind of "Serbian arrival", and therefore he has the right for edit warring.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked both for edit warring after being informed of the DS for Eastern Europe and fully protected the article for a month. Hopefully, that'll encourage both parties to take this talk page and discuss it before going back at each other over the edits. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81:, as an uninvolved editor, I came here by noticing that editor Mikola22 ceased to engage in an identical POV pushing and reverts across the ARBMAC/EE articles, especially in articles on history of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, to which they were in unaccounted number of dispute resolutions and reports, and whom I just wanted to report for the second time in just two days on edit-warring. Obvious reason for their sudden disappearance is this block on 72 hours. However, I couldn't avoid being under impression that editor Nicoljaus suffered a bit unfair block as a consequence of his report on Mikola22 editing behavior - we should try to put into perspective difference between editors' general attitude and approach, where one gives its all, or at least much more, in following procedures in dispute resolutions and reasonably argues his position, even if it happens to be dragged into what's technically amounts to edit-warring. It simply doesn't feel fair to lump together two editors with diametrically opposite approach to the project guidelines and policies and practical procedures, solely on the bases of technicality. Cheers--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Equally true is that both have been warned about this before and neither one opened a talk page thread or made any other effort to resolve this peacefully, and both have received DS warning on this issue. Sometimes its at the end of the gun that people finally decide to cooperate with each other as opposed to fighting with each other. That being said, admins such as myself are held accountable to the community, if others should be found to share your position I will reconsider my actions here. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

TomStar81, well, as one of the users involved in discussions with Mikola, I am also thinking that Nicoljaus was collateral damage here, but as you said it, there was no talking on the talk page, so I understand your position as well. The problem is ongoing for months now, and editing any article that had Mikola22 involved was very difficult, to say the least. Mikola22 registered in October and immediately jumped into contentious articles with tendentious editing. Mhare (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User Bashargold

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

I'm somewhat at a loss what to think of this editor. He appears to be systematically introducing erroneous numbers and information into numerous articles without sources or explanation, which suggests deliberate vandalism; but it's remotely possible he is posting in good faith but simply has no understanding of verifiability. For example, he has repeatedly changed the numbers of Japanese battleships built during the Second World War to 12 from 2 (the correct number, corresponding to the two Yamatos constructed during the war) but this is also the peak Japanese battleship strength during the war and it is remotely possible he is confused about what the table is supposed to show. In other articles, he has introducted production numbers at odds with the cited sources without explanation. Suggestions? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The user never edited any talk page, including their own user talk page, so I am not that hopeful here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks like no one has even attempted to talk to this guy like a person about his edits. Other than a flurry of vandalism template warnings from the first week of December, the only thing on his talk page is this WP:ANI notification. Is it fair to criticize someone for not using talk pages when no one has even tried to talk to him on either his own talk page or on an article’s talk page?

(I don’t mean this as a criticism of Kent Budge, who is raising a valid concern, it’s more of an issue with the way we treat potentially good faith users. ANI is often the first stop we make and assumptions are usually made here based on someone’s lack of talk page replies even when no one has spoken to them.) Michepman (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tried leaving a candid but polite and wp:agf comment on his talk page explaining the concern. We'll see what develops.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

(sigh) Back to the same behavior. Materialscientist has applied a temporary block. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Rotaryenginepete

Rotaryenginepete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been involved in a protracted and unproductive discussion at Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). The user is promoting a theory that the President has not actually been impeached, and is becoming increasingly aggressive on the talk page. The account seems to be an SPA, and I suspect that they (and StanTheMan0131, another SPA) might be sockpuppets. Pinging David O. Johnson. WMSR (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget the users User:MugwumpSpirit110, User:MoMoBig, User:Sonar1313, User:50.37.100.51, User:Jacket2018, User:Xenagoras, User:50.37.112.189, User:Partytemple, and others who agree with me and have also been shot down on the talk page. I clearly documented what you're calling a theory with numerous reliable sources.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The user continues to push their own view (going against consensus) and is unwilling to listen to other editors on the matter. It makes it frustrating to edit the article in a productive manner, since our time is spent debating Rotaryenginepete in this fruitless argument. As User:WMSR indicates here [40], the user continue to beat a dead HORSE. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If the horse is dead, then why are there multiple edit requests and comments from dozens of users with the same concerns? Editors who singled me out are labeling opposing opinions as disruptive, instead of trying to resolve the onflict. I have even asked for constructive input and suggestions, openly stating that I want to change the request to resolve the continually highlighted appearance of bias. Repeatedly stated the goal is NPOV, which is clearly being violated with respect to the minority view.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

WMSR Let the record note that I am the one and only StanTheMan0131. Seriously dude, it's kind of paranoid of you to make assumptions just because my style annoys you. I've contributed to that article in a very positive way. I'm honestly not surprised you're the one who made this report (not even going to entertain your ridiculous sock puppet conspiracy). Either way, I have been making REAL contributions on other articles with REAL compromises with REASONABLE people for the better of everyone else. Shame on you. Let the cards fold as they may. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanTheMan0131 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the OP on every point. Rotaryenginepete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and StanTheMan0131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their accounts exactly 30 hours from each other. Almost all of their edits have been to Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump, and their commenting styles are very similar (bolding large sections of text, all CAPs headings). Both have crossed the line from productive discussion into tendentiousness. - MrX 🖋 13:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

StanTheMan0131I regret you were dragged into this. I asked them to take this to admin because after their threat to do so I wanted admin to see the suppressive language and now behavior being displayed on the talk page. After I have documented the Harvard lawyer and multiple reliable sources on the matter, now they are attempting to make it look like "one person's theory", blatantly ignoring the other voices on the talk page. The vast majority of those who oppose changing the language have not attempted to resolve the conflict nor contribute. Take for instance the following edit requests which were shot down by mostly the same few editors...with the sole reasoning their personal belief that Trump is officially impeached is fact, and that the provided reliable sources or opinions which counter their opinions don't matter: Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Nancy_Pelosi_Says_Articles_of_Impeachment_May_Not_Be_Sent_to_the_Senate, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Impeachment_did_not_actually_occur_yet, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Biased_claims_and_citations, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_December_2019, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Importance_of_Withholding_for_This_article?, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#RE:_Removal_of_Source_Content, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_December_2019, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#RfC_on_Situation, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Delay_sending_articles, Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Rename_And_Change_The_Trial_Section, and Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Edit_Request_for_Neutrality,_to_Resolve_the_Appearance_of_Bias. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• That talk page is hilarious, if you like editors getting bogged down. I saw Rotarypete say "The media is biased, there's no use in referencing them for factual content"--I think the next step is for an admin who knows paperwork to just topic-ban them from this article and the talk page. And the same for every other editor who, with 170 edits under their belt, thinks that Wikipedia is just a GREAT place to troll. Or just block them per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes that statement was in reference to the claim that media headlines are reliable sources, which is true they are biased according to Reliable_sources/using headlinesRotaryenginepete (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There are quite a few of these eager fresh faces showing up on the Trump-related articles over the past month or so. Unfortunately there seem to be many longtime editors who either enjoy debating this sort of nonsense or who believe we're all here to educate imaginary internet personalities. We all really need to avoid any temptation to engage. There have also been some good faith redlink newcomers, but they don't engage as described above, and they have responded appropriately to discussion with longtime editors. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, so what do you suggest we do? ECP on the Talk page? Guy (help!) 15:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be against the spirit of WP as an open community, although I wouldn't personally oppose it. It's a matter of balance. We would lose some good suggestions that way, but the status quo is we are losing the participation of good seasoned editors who have no time or patience for role playing and time wasting on article talk pages. In general, IPs and new editors often seem to make valuable contributions. On these politics articles where there's obvious off-wiki inspiration for their visits, I haven't seen much good at all. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Topic Ban Rotaryenginepete - I had not personally made the connection between the two mentioned above. But in re to the whole talk page wall of text and requests for rewording by Rotaryenginepete, it just seemed to be like the 2019 version of "what the meaning of the word 'is' is". That particular editor has demonstrated many of the hallmarks of WP:TEND. And the editor's history looks like a single-purpose account focused on this one topic. Enough is enough. Please enforce a TOPIC BAN. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in addition to a topic ban for StanTheMan0131, who I should have included in the original filing. WMSR (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Just a quick note that Rotaryenginepete was given an American Politics discretionary sanctions alert at 03:19, 26 December 2019 [41] so before this discussion had started and a bunch of their other stuff like [42] [43]. StanTheMan0131 was given an American Politics discretionary sanctions alert at 08:50, 26 December 2019 [44] and hasn't done anything since then. So Rotaryenginepete could potentially be sanctioned under the AP2 regime if an admin feels their latest contribs indicate a problem. StanTheMan0131, not at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There's also a giant notice at the top of the talk page that says to BE BOLD I offered over a dozen sources, many not opinion...yet repeatedly told they don't count. So much for NPOVRotaryenginepete (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Without justifying either's actions (topic bans may certainly be in order), looking at some of the behavior, I think the likelihood of sockpuppetry between Pete and Stan is extremely low. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Topic Ban Rotaryenginepete and StanTheMan0131 for refusing to listen and bludgeoning. I just read the Talk page for the first time and I'm amazed at the amount of synthesis, extrapolating claims based on dictionaries, repeatedly citing the same opinion pieces, misrepresenting sources, the list goes on. Of course we need to AGF with new editors, but we also can't let them drive off editors who understand and uphold our core content policies. Woodroar (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, cherry picking policies to strongly oppose a minority view which an editor disagrees with, such as weighting headlines over opinion pieces and non-opinion articles. The "not impeached until articles are sent to Senate" view is all over the media and academia. It's clear the majority of editors on this impeachment page aren't truly interested in NPOV. And you wonder why you're losing editors...I'll save you the trouble. Enjoy your echo chamber. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Fuck headlines, that much is certain. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

The bolded comment above is pretty indicative of all of this user's commentary on the impeachment talk page. WMSR (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out that Rotaryenginepete seems to be encouraging canvassing for an RfC on another user's talk page. Though perhaps the best quote from the rant is They tried taking me to admin and calling me disruptive, but I called their bluff by highlighting the hypocrisy in their arguments. There already seems to be consensus for a topic ban. I would encourage an admin to please enforce this. WMSR (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@WMSR: Son, I'm going to have to encourage that you stop trying so hard. Your point (or lack of) has been observed time and time again. There you sat almost 40 minutes apart - with near certainty filling that dead space in between by rapidly hitting the f5 key - to check gleefully if you have "won" with your victory condition of a topic ban being enforced on both users. You couldn't even wait a full hour to call it to someones attention again. "Maybe they forgot," you say to yourself. "Perhaps they need me to remind them? We need a development!" You type your comment out with encouraging words to try once again to route the troops and sway the decision in your favor - "I can't JUST report this, give the admin the necessary information, and then continue on. I am the AMBASSADOR of this attempt to have these people removed from editing the article." As you almost finalize your comment and prepare to sign it you pause for a moment; "Wait, a couple others have agreed to this..." Your eyes widen and you grin. "Consensus. Now THAT sounds official. Sure not many people from the article have chipped in their opinion, but without anyone taking their side I can make it seem bigger than it is." You complete the comment, check it for spelling errors, then sign it with those four sweet key strokes - making sure to hit that fourth tilde with extra force for emphasis. You lean back in your chair and kick you feet up, "Man it feels good to be king and have this power." Within two minutes your hands and face begin to sweat profusely. "Maybe just one refresh. Couldn't hurt." You hit f5... nothing. A minute passes by and you hit it again... nada. Thirty seconds, f5, wrong. Fifteen seconds, f5, nope. You continue pressing it over and over - only stopping once to quickly make sure that you're fully connected to the internet. You are - but there isn't even so much as a hint of an update. This sends you into an hour long nonstop f5 bashing frenzy which abruptly ends as the answer became clear to you: "Wait a minute... I think that I am the only one that actually cares about this. No one else thinks that this is life or death." And that, WMSR, is one thing you finally got right - that no one but you actually cared. Editors note: I hope that you all enjoyed reading this, as it is art. My words? The paint. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@StanTheMan0131: I've seen nothing to make me doubt WMSR has the best interest of the encyclopaedia at heart. You on the other hand I'm not so sure. With the silly F5 story above and your insistence, despite multiple requests from other editors, on excessive bolding because "By using the bold text in such a dynamic way I am not only appearing to be more cool, but it keeps the reader engaged as well so they can feel the emotion and continued interest in reading my posts." I'm not so sure. BTW to my mind, and from what I can tell from the talk page, your bolding does not look cool to most people, does not keep many people engaged, and does not generate continued interest in reading your posts for many. Instead it's just lame and makes people think you have nothing useful to say and your posts are not worth reading. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was going to be a cool story, like most hour-long F5 bashing frenzies, but then I realized it wasn't about Brock Lesnar in Space, just some woman at a desk, masturbating very subtly. Refreshing, sure, but not art. Speaking of obscenity in the workplace, this is the last you'll see of my horrid signature collection around here, on account of it making several editors uncomfortable in the time management department (so to speak). Adios, certain individuals! Stay golden, Nil Einne. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:43, December 29, 2019 (UTC)

@WMSR: Thanks for reinforcing my point that a band of editors are weaponizing policy arguments against those they disagree with, in effect creating an echo chamber for your opinion. I stepped off the talk page, but that doesn't mean I stepped off the internet nor that this established procedural view still doesn't exist. If I seemed to be encouraging Wikipedia:Canvassing, which is stated as "perfectly acceptable", then you would seem to be correct. There is clearly a consensus among many comments made by editors already involved on the talk page over this subject, which means your word on the matter is far from final and far from consensus. An appropriate canvassing notification is "Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open". My post was limited to one, the goal is still NPOV, the subject is clearly not partisan because reliable sources establish that the "not technically impeached" view is held by folks from many aspects of the political spectrum, and I did it in the open (as recommended) on a user's talk page where anyone could see it. You originally told me "That is you talking, not the source. You need reliable sources that explicitly make your claim." After I came back with those sources and cited them, you proceeded to canvass the editors who you believe agree with your viewpoint to file this ANI and label me as a disruptive sockpuppet. This amounts to nothing more than attempted suppression. Have a great day, and please continue to enjoy your echo chamber.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read beyond the first sentence of WP:CANVASSING. You've seriously misinterpreted the policy. --WMSR (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@WMSR: LOL paranoid much? Ok I read the second sentence too...Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. I understand my post to (as you put it) "encourage canvassing" may have gotten under your skin...but it was not a direct notification because I messaged an editor already involved. I also didn't recommend any inappropriate notifications or selection of editors on a basis of opinion. I simply stated there are many others already on the talk page who disagree with your viewpoint, and it would probably take others getting involved to overthrow the existing biased editors...which is true. But in order to prove your newest conspiracy theory, the canvassing first needs to exist and then you need to prove that user selected the recipients with the intention of vote-stacking or influencing the outcome in a particular way. A simple notification to editors on both sides of the discussion would be considered appropriate...and it could very well end up supporting your viewpoint too. So someone disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make vote-stacking their intention. Simply put, you felt the need to taddle about another conspiracy theory. Those echoes must be getting louder. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

So you admit you want to "overthrow the existing biased editors"? David O. Johnson (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, but you're conflating a statement of truth with a statement of intention, which has already been stated as NPOV. The reason these editors are displaying bias is because the additional reliable sources that I provided clearly offered opinions from folks other than just Feldman, while also questioning the official status of impeachment...which is precisely what these same editors have repeatedly asked for yet refused to acknowledge. So if I provided what they asked for, but they still refuse to acknowledge it, either they are biased or simply too lazy to read past the headlines...which is why early on I said scholars>headlines. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Me and Curly Turkey once almost died fighting off a herd of headlines about a certain great ape's "racist tweet" getting her show canceled/cancelled. It was crazy and turned out a few different ways before I got distracted and moved on, but I knew I was right about how opinions aren't facts all along, and so do you. Regardless of outcome, the particulars will change and stop mattering in time. May as well get into the next "national debate" before it's news, at least if you want to swing it toward a scholarly debate. There's just no winning an emotional battle, especially when it's already tied to great apes grapping famous blonde apes by the shithole before wiping their safe spaces with the American flag in the locker room before kneeling to those pussy rapist invaders instead of removing our protective sport hats and standing and saluting a song about rockets. Remember when North Korea was "totally going to kill him" for that "Rocket Man" headline they all shared? Never happened, in my opinion. But America did totally get him already with that formal impeachment, and that's simply that, even if half of us fundamentally don't get how a bunch of donkeys screwing an elephant is funny despite not quite working in reality. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:12, December 29, 2019 (UTC)

Open Technology Fund

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

---

• Open Technology Fund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like there are concerns surrounding the Open Technology Fund article, including:

1. Whether listing the names of OTF employees counts as an outing or not; and
2. Is the "Controversies and Criticism" section (now removed from the article), as originally added by User:176.160.172.33, biased or not?

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 12:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• How is this a matter for administrative intervention? Drmies (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm unable to check if the statements were biased or not, so I wanted the admins to step in. Is there any other way to call for an intervention in such circumstances? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not an administrator's job, or forte, to check whether sources are neutral or not... Before you look for intervention, we'd like to see (extensive) talk page discussion, or efforts toward discussion. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
      • User:176.160.172.33 keeps reverting changes, and doesn't seem to be interacting on the talk page. I went back through their edits- one source they used as a citation was Twitter, and another source the editor linked to didn't even have the information they claimed to be sourcing. Additionally, the framing of the Controversies and Criticisms read to be more conspiracies. None of the sources listed backed up that editor's arguments- it seems extremely not neutral writing. Cellarpaper (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies: As you investigate our Open Technology Fund article, please consider the issue I raised at Talk:Open_Technology_Fund under Addition to Section 3 - Projects. I believe User:Gamaliel unjustly removed my contribution for what he described in his edit summary as "Issues of BLP and NPOV." My contribution cites WP:RS and provides a straightforward narrative of a newsworthy OTF project; it does not violate NPOV. Please allow me to restore this. NedFausa (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• NedFausa, you can't have it both ways. If you refer to me as an "administrator" and then say I'm involved, you can hardly ask me if I would "allow" you to restore something. I am not acting as an administrator there, so there won't be any involvement, unless there are clear-cut BLP violations, for instance, which I didn't see. This removal of mine concerned highly promotional content, BTW, and I do not intend to adjudicate administratively in what, at least so far, seems like a content matter. The moment it becomes an administrative matter, it will have to be another administrator who does what needs to be done. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User Melroross

• Melroross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Portuguese people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I edited an article changing a phrase that didn't match with the content of the source it had attached, and I replaced that phrase with words literally extracted from the source.[45]

However, user Melroross systematically eliminated the entire edition accusing me irrationally of having a biased vision for being "Spaniard" or "Brazilian". After observing that he kept eliminating my editions, I decided to reverse my edition and register in WP to open a thread to discuss the problem in "Talk" and stop the Edit War. There, I presented my arguments and showed that my edition was not a personal opinion, but text extracted from the source of the article itself. Despite this, Melroross began incessantly to obtein the permanent page protection and expelled me indefinitely on the grounds that "I am against the Portuguese people." The moderators have warned Melroross several times that no I am not acting in a vandalism way and that the page cannot be blocked because there are no reasons for that and they have urged him to dialogue with me in the thread that I opened in Talk ([46]). After that, instead of talking he has begun to delete my arguments in the discussion thread and change the title of the thread. ([47], [48], [49], [50]). A moderator warned him to stop deleting messages and altering the title ([51], [52]), and yet Melroross continued to erase my arguments, so as to avoid dialogue ([53]). All of this using an uncivic and accusative language, and sometimes even xenophobic and racist. ([54], [55] ). His attitude, his language and his disruptive editions can also be seen in the Talk thread itself ("Edit war").([56])

It can be seen that he doesnt want to dialogue but simply impose his norm. I wish you could review the case and consider the appropriated measure. NormanGear (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing threaded discussion from talk pages (without an edit summary, even) is disruptive. I have left the user warning against doing so again. El_C 17:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much El_C.

I am trying to remove an invented phrase from the article (does not match with its source) and change it to a phrase taken from the source itself. But he automatically deletes my editions and refuses to dialogue a consensus in Talk.

NormanGear (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In the first sentence of this complaint, I have replaced NormanGear's *mobile* diff to his edit of Portuguese people with a regular diff to the same change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever

I have a significant concern that User:CheatCodes4ever is not competent and should be blocked. This user has been around for two years - originally under a different username, which they abandoned because they "...had all sorts of troubles with it". They have been editing as CheatCodes4ever since October. Their talk page is a sea of warnings, deletion notices and attempts by a variety of editors to guide and help them. They continually create articles about clearly non-notable subjects, without proper sourcing. A few examples: Draft:Drake(Bart Baker song), Draft:Tom Thum, Theme music from Peppa Pig, Draft:So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2017 + The Best of 2016, Bing Bong Christmas, Draft:Jessie Paege and the genuinely ridiculous Peppa Pig (British singer and rapper) (deleted). There are dozens more, many already deleted.

Huge amounts of time and effort have been put into trying to help this editor understand the key concepts of notability and reliable sources, by many editors. Yet they have failed to grasp even the basics of these core policies, as evidenced by the recently-created Angela (character). This article is currently at AfD and their comment at the discussion is illuminating, given the problematic sourcing and lack of notability of the subject: [57]. After two years of heavy editing, and repeated coaching by dozens of experienced editors it is reasonable to expect that CheatCodes4ever would understand these concepts; clearly they do not.

The energy sucked up in dealing with this user is an unnecessary distraction for many editors, and the damage they continue to cause to Wikipedia is significant. As @Robvanvee: noted two days ago "We are going to end up at ANI very soon at this rate. Your aversion to sourcing is highly disruptive". I'd like to call out the very significant work Robvanvee has done to try to help CheatCodes4ever, without success. Almost certainly this is a younger user, given the subject matter involved, but enormous reservoirs of WP:AGF have been drained. I don't think this user is competent enough to continue editing. Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In this diff, CheatCodes4ever says the previous account was Money12122 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the previous account (CheatCodes4ever also edited Money12122's talk page: [58] and there is meaningful editing overlap between them). I had avoided naming the previous account here to avoid any possibility of outing them, in an overabundance of caution. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support Regrettably, I have to agree with Mirror here. I had actually contemplated reporting CheatCodes here for competency earlier this month after running across some of their drafts. While they seem to be trying, they are just not getting it, despite many folks attempts to explain how Wikipedia works. However, the recent thread on their talk, User talk:CheatCodes4ever#I'm retiring gives me slight pause. If they are retiring, perhaps a block is unnecessary. Or, if they are willing to step away from drafts and just work on articles, they may be able to learn the ropes. Drafts are a very difficult place for folks to edit, and many people who are bad at drafts do perfectly well at editing in other places. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, CaptainEek. I too had seen their stated intention to retire, and like you I thought that could be the best outcome. Unfortunately, they decided the rescind their retirement on the same day: (note the edit summary) and continued on editing. They have been asked multiple times to stop creating Drafts, and like almost all the other advice they've received, they haven't been able to take that on board. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Their unretirement is not surprising, given that they created this account less than two hours after rage-quitting at their previous account. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I ran across this editor after their creation of Peppa Pig (British singer and rapper), which also led to finding this ridiculous edit. Despite other editors' efforts, this appears to be a WP:CIR issue. The article Angela (character) and draft Draft:Jessie Paege are indicative of the typical non-viable content created by this editor. Despite other editors' efforts to educate this user on policies and guidelines, this seems like a time sink, and allowing them to continue to edit seems like a net negative to the project. Even if a block is not the ultimate result of this report, preventing this editor from creating content in the Article and Draft namespaces would be the minimum sanction that is appropriate here. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, it’s CheatCodes4ever. I would like to have a fresh start and stop making articles that are rejected. I also will not edit Wikipedia without sourcing what I write. I will not make any more articles till I have figured out how to make one for something notable. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No – no more new accounts. That would be evading scrutiny. Just stick to this account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block and be clear that the block applies to the person, not the account. That's always the case, but I'm concerned, given the above comments about a clean start, that this user won't understand that. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block As someone who has spent much time trying to help this person, it is very clear to me that they are obsessed with creating new articles (in this case, for want of a better word, as 5-worded poorly sourced stubs hardly constitute articles), perhaps hat collecting and are not interested in learning in any way despite the attempts of several of the above editors. As has been mentioned, I too think this editor fails to grasp the gravity of the situation and may possibly believe creating a new account will refresh the issue so that may also need to be addressed. Robvanvee 13:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It would appear that previous concerns of this editor creating a new account to have a "fresh start" are legitimate. Could any involved admin see here please. Robvanvee 06:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP as an attempt to evade scrutiny (albeit a rather poor one). Per WP:CLEANSTART, the existence of this discussion precludes this user from such a clean start. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Monica Sarup

User:Monica Sarup appears to either be the actress Monica Sarup or a representative on her behalf. They appear to have made a Wikipedia account, as opposed to an article, and I believe this will lead to self promotion or conflict of interest issues. Rusted AutoParts 19:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcomed, notified about the discussion, warned about the conflict of interest. WP:REALNAME may apply. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Gregeroszlar

User:Gregeroszlar is using Wikipedia strictly as a means of self-promotion despite repeated warnings. After posting the same draft three times, he was hit with a weeklong ban. He then proceeded to post the same content on his talk page while throwing in an insult for good measure. A permanent ban is perhaps now in order as he has made it clear he has no intent of constructively contributing to the encyclopedia. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"Most likely I am going to carry on to write a normal article about myself" seems like a statement of intent to continue disruption, so it seems reasonable to extend the block to an indefinite one. I have done so. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenfan17

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The mentioned user keeps changing the outlook of 2020 World Rally Championship#Entries to his own liking. This is going on for atleast one month. We've had a system for every previous season article. Most of all, we had a discussion, where nobody supported him (all participants were against this new format), but Mclarenfan17 still editwars to keep his own preferred version. I'm making this report, because I can not see the good faith in these edits. Examples of the edits (just enough not to break 3RR): [59] [60] [61] + 3 during the last 24h [62] [63] [64]. So is a consensus something to respect or not? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I don't deny that a consensus was formed. However, in the time since that consensus was formed, new details have come to light and the implementation of that consensus contradicts the sources in the article. I will try to keep this as simple as possible:

At the time the consensus was formed, Hyundai and Toyota had announced their driver line-ups:

• Hyundai had two full-time entries (for Tanak/Jarveoja and Neuville/Gilsoul) and a third entry shared between two crews (Sordo/del Barrio and Loeb/Elena).
• Toyota had three full-time entries (for Ogier/Ingrassia, Evans/Martin and Rovanpera/Hulttunen).

However, after that consensus was formed, Toyota went on to announce that they would enter two additional cars during the year, one for Jari-Matti Latvala and one for Takamoto Katsuta. This is supported in the article by this source (currently source #20 in the article). Crucially, the article makes it clear that Toyota have not decided how to structure their team:

If [Jari-Matti] Latvala secured a five-round deal it could reignite enthusiasm for Toyota to create a 'B team'. Latvala could potentially run alongside Toyota protege Takamoto Katsuta, who will start all eight European WRC rounds and Rally Japan. Sources in Toyota confirmed a second team was under consideration for 2020. The original idea was for [Kalle] Rovanpera and Katsuta to drive for the second team so the two youngsters could learn out of the spotlight. Registering and running a second, point-scoring manufacturer team could be beneficial for Toyota's ambitions of a second makes' title in three years. Latvala said he is ready to help [team principal Tommi] Makinen and Toyota.

"Like I said, I want to drive next year. Maybe it could make sense to join [Katsuta] in a second team and try to score some points," Latvala said.

And this is where the issue stems from. The consensus in the article is to organise the entry table by grouping the entrants together, bringing it in line with the style of table used in previous years. This style uses two tables, one for entries that can score manufacturer points, and one for entries that cannot. By organising the 2020 entries so that they centred on the team, the article implies that the team structure has been set, which contradicts the sources. I have tried to point this out in edit summaries and on the article talk page, but the only response that I have gotten from Pelmeen10 has been the claim that I am deliberately going against the consensus because I don't like it. Furthermore, after I posted an explanation for why a different format was needed, this is what he responded with:

You comments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't have any kind of consensus here. The unannounced car numbers just can't be shown as the most important thing, which the sorting is based on. Like we discussed, there are no sources to back all these numbers. Loeb btw is now associated with number 9.

I have tried to point out that the table format implies something that contradicts the sources and he instead talks about "unannounced car numbers", which leads me to believe that he has not read a) any of my comments or b) the sources in the article and has instead rushed to revert my changes to the article, assuming that I did it because of previous opposition to the table format.

Pelmeen10 opened his post with a question: is a consensus something to respect or not? I would like to answer that: yes, a consensus is something to be respected—but at the same time, a consensus does not give editors a licence to ignore, dismiss or misrepresent a reliable and verifiable source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I have since realised that when Pelmeen10 mentions "unannounced car numbers", he is referreding a a discussion at WT:MOTOR in which he and another editor made a specific claim (that because the title of the regulations refers to "seasonal numbers", drivers must reapply for their numbers every year, and so all of the numbers in the 2020 article are unsourced), but refused to provide any sources to support this when asked for them. In the time since posting this ANI report, Pelmeen10 has repeated the claim (by referring me to that discussion) to justify enforcing the consensus. My response has been to provide multiple sources debunking his theory. If he is trying to claim that the consensus was based on that discussion at WT:MOTOR, then I would argue that there was never a consensus to begin with because it was based on original research (only the title refers to "seasonal numbers"; there is nothing in the actual regulations to support his claim) and because he refused to provide reliable and verifiable sources despite being asked multiple times, instead insisting that the burden rested with people who disagreed with him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes; yet, so far, the discussion is about content details. Please focus future comments on "urgent incidents" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Cullen328: I am aware of what ANI is for and I am not trying to use it to resolve a content dispute. I simply feel that Pelmeen10 is misrepresenting things. He claims that I am wilfully ignoring a consensus because of personal preference, but I am not. I simply felt the need to provide some contextual detail because a) I cannot assume any admin reading this is familiar with the subject, b) the reasons for my decisiom to change the format back are not immediately obvious when reading the article, and c) I feel that Pelmeen10 has a habit of not reading articles, sources and policies thoroughly and I wanted to put something here to refer back during any discussion.

What would you suggest I do otherwise? Say "yes, I ignored the consensus"? Because I did. Not out of personal preference as Pelmeen10 claims, but out of necessity. When I changed the format of the table back, I tried to keep a format that at least resembled the consensus, but was unable to do so. I posted this message to the article talk page (dated 29 November), addressed Pelmeen10 directly (and later edited that message) that same day when he reverted it. There was little activity on the talk page (and none directly related to the issue) until 26 December when I again explained to Pelmeen10 why I felt that I had to make the change. With no opposition to the change for a month (and the expectation that the original consensus would be applied once a more-comprehensive source becomes available), I felt that WP:EDITCONSENSUS applied as a temporary solution. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, you openly admit that you are ignoring consensus even though Wikipedia:Consensus is policy, and you are claiming that your own personal perception of "necessity" overrides policy. I am unpersuaded. Can you please explain yourself more clearly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: in the time between the consensus being formed and this ANI being opened, more information about the 2020 World Championship has been made public. I felt that this source published on 29 November (and currently in the article as source #20) changed things and would have affected the consensus discussion had it been available at the time (for the record, the consensus was still being discussed as recently as 28 November).

The consensus at WP:WRC is that entry tables should be structured in such a way that all crews competing for one team should be grouped together (for example, in the 2019 article). This is common across all motorsport-related articles. However, that consensus was formed before 29 November. On 29 November, Toyota announced that they would enter two additional cars during the 2020 season. The content of that source made it clear that they had not yet decided on the structure of the team. Would it be one big team of five cars? Or two separate teams? And if so, how would the cars be split between them?

When I saw this, I realised that there would be a problem with the consensus. It meant that the entry table grouped all five Toyota entries together as if they were one team, which contradicted what the source said. This source—Autosport—is one of the most widely-used sources across motorsport articles because it is extremely reliable. Furthermore, Hyundai had already announced how their team would be structured, which meant I felt the article further contradicted the source because it implied Toyota had finalised their structure, which they had not.

When I made the changes to the table, I tried as best I could to respect the consensus while also reflecting the content of the 29 November source, but I simply could not make it work. I also knew that within six weeks an ironclad source—the entry list for the first round—would be published, resolving the issue altogether because it would make clear who was competing for which team. I felt that I had to choose between a consensus which inadvertently contradicted sources (which had not been available at the time) or overlooking the consensus in favour of a very reliable and verifiable source with the expectation that the consensus would be applied once a source would be published within six weeks. Everything that I did here was in good faith. It was not, as Pelmeen10 contends, because I didn't like the consensus, but because of information published after the consensus was formed. Had the information published on 29 November been available when the consensus was formed, it would have been factored into the consensus discussion in which case a) the consensus would not have been formed as it was, or b) editors would have agreed to wait until the structure of Toyota's team was announced before we applied the table format. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, you say the you understand that this noticeboard does not judge content disputes and yet you continue to to argue here at ANI in favor of your preferred content. Let me be clear: no uninvolved editor here at ANI cares about your content disputes. Go pursue Dispute resolution which might include a Request for comment. In brief, if the facts underlying a consensus have changed, then engage with other editors interested in the article to build a new consensus. Be persuasive. Forcefully claiming the right to impose your preferred changes is wrong, just plain wrong. Please do not go there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm not sure what you want me to say here. You asked me to explain my actions, and I have tried to do just that with a sufficient level of detail that you understand my thinking here, but you just reply "ANI isn't for content disputes". I'm not claiming that I have some right to ignore a consensus. I'm saying when I was put in a position where I had to choose between a consensus and a reliable source, I chose the reliable source when satisfying both the consensus and the source proved impossible. When I posted this to the article talk page, nobody came along and made an alternative suggestion that resolved the dilemma. I had every expectation and every intention that the agreed-upon format would eventually be applied and everything I did was done in good faith. This has nothing to do with a "preferred version" of the article.

What would you do in my position? You can observe a consensus that is largely cosmetic, but contradicts reliable sources that you did not have access to when that consensus was made; or you can overlook the consensus for the time being to make sure the article accurately reflects its sources with a view to reintroducing the consensus as soon as it is possible to do so. You cannot satisfy both at once, and it seems that my biggest mistake was that I made the wrong choice. I made it because I cannot see anything in WP:CONSENSUS that says editor are allowed to form a consensus that ignores WP:RELIABLE. If I'm missing it, please point it out to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, the correct course of action here would have been to first boldly attempt to edit the article, then go to the talk page to hash it out. You should not attempt to reinstate your edits again until the discussion has been resolved. If you think that other editors on the article are ignoring your arguments, you can take it to WP:DRN or convene an WP:RFC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I tried to do exactly that. This is the edit I made to the article on 29 November, and this is the explanation I posted to the talk page five minutes later. The only person who responded (and not on the talk page, my talk page or at any relevant WikiProject) was an editor with a habit of reverting things on sight and not reading articles and sources, including articles he is reverting. Case in point, this edit where he removed reliably-sourced content (Takamoto Katsuta's entry) because he didn't check. I've been bold, I've posted an explanation for why I felt the changes were necessary, shown a willingness to work with others on it and nothing has come of it until the past 24 hours (there were a few other edits in the past week, but largely unrelated to the issue and were adding unsourced content). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, taking it to the talk page in November was the correct decision. If other editors don't respond to you there, the next step is to convene an RfC or start a thread here, depending on the exact nature of the issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 09:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, other editors in rallying articles now mostly leave one or couple of comments (or are not even gonna comment anymore), because Mclarenfan17 can keep up the discussion endlessly (weeks, months) with the same arguements, which will never lead to anything. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So can I revert to the wikitable format we have a consensus of? The one we've used for years. Because no Rfc or DRN has started (which I'm pretty sure is not necessary, because all active editors in this subject have already given their thoughts. Plus, Mclarenfan17 claims his version is just temporary. Is it now clear that Mclarenfan17 shouldn't revert me again? Though, I don't want to be part of an edit war. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I have no objection to the consensus being applied, but would suggest that its implementation needs to accurately reflect the sources in the article. In other words, it cannot group the five Toyota entries together as though they are one team. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Another violation: Mclarenfan17 did not even respect a consensus after the DRN/Rfc is finished: here is one where uninvolved editor summed up the discussion with "it appears that there is a small consensus favouring the removal of the third row" - but just 3 days later (24 Nov 2019) Mclarenfan17 reverts it claiming "The "consensus" was so small that no-one did anything with it for TEN WEEKS and it's undermined by one editor's agenda". So the behaviour is repeating over and over again... Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: the "consensus" in question was formed by an editor who has engaged in a sustained campaign of harrassment (particularly wikihounding) against me. It was very weak to begin with me and clearly designed to frustrate my editing practice rather than benefit the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that user (Tvx1) has respect among other rallying editors (including me). But it looks to me that you try to undermine his comments by getting personal (attacking and insulting). You have also attacked other editors, both in comments and edit summaries. If needed, I can bring examples. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That user's edit history shows that his only contributions to rallying articles are to join in discussions on the current season's talk page and oppose me in discussions. He has never actually contributed anything to a rallying article. It stands out because his edit history shows a handful of topics that he likes to edit articles about, and that he contributes to multiple articles and talk page discussions within those topics—but not rallying, where he only ever contributes to one talk page at a time. It's really none of your business and a matter for a separate ANI. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You are making some serious accusations of bad faith and generally seriously wrong editing by User:Tvx1 here even though you provided no diffs, and AFAIK there's no case where your claims were established. You've also failed to notify Tvx1 of this discussion despite your serious accusations. I'll do so for you but I suggest you either provide diffs and a brief summary to support your allegations or withdraw them lest you are blocked for personal attacks for making unsupported allegations of wrong doing. I recalled seeing your 2 names before and came across Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Harrassment by an editor, and your claims didn't seem to be accepted in part because your comment was way too long. Nevertheless, there was some frustration at your unwillingness to accept any wrong doing on your part. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I did not want to turn this discussion into a discussion about wiki-hounding. I feel that a separate ANI would be more appropriate for that; however, I have not had any issues with the editor in question and last time I tried to raise subject of wiki-hounding, I felt the editor successfully misrepresented my ANI report as bring some petty revenge for "losing" a DRN discussion (which was not helped by a DRN volunteer refusing to read anything I posted, but seeing fit to pass judgement on it anyway). As you can perhaps appreciate, in light of this I have little appetite to start another ANI about wiki-hounding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you believe there are procedural issues which means a closure was incorrect, you should discuss this with the closer and try to get the closing statement changed. Worst case, you could always bring it to WP:AN or similar and ask for a re-close. Likewise if you feel that consensus has changed because of new information, it may be okay to WP:BOLDly make a change in some cases. But once someone objects, you need to work on establishing that consensus has indeed changed. If someone has objected, and no one else is commenting, then you have no real evidence that consensus has changed, whatever your views of the other person's objections and so you have to return to the old consensus established via an RfC. You can try using WP:3O or some other method like posting a neutral message on a relevant wikiproject asking for more feedback. Ultimately, if you cannot get a consensus via those methods, then you need to start another WP:RfC to establish this alleged new consensus and overturn the old one. You cannot simply refuse to accept a consensus, even a narrow one because you don't like it. To be clear I'm including any sincere belief on your part that the consensus view is wrong, doesn't work, is based on OR, is invalid, etc as well as your personal opinions on the motivations of other editors. Especially not a consensus 3 days old. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel I did exactly that. I made a BOLD edit based on new information. I posted an explanation on the talk page and I got no response. Pelmeen10 did revert it and I directly addressed him on the talk page, asking him to take care because his revert had deleted content from the article that had nothing to do with the consensus. He never responded. Nobody did, and things have been quiet until about 24 hours ago. Despite Pelmeen10's repeated claim that I ignored the consensus because I disliked it, everything I did was done in good faith. I felt I had to choose between a consensus and a source with information that could change the consensus. I only made the change after trying to re-format the table to be consistent with the consensus, but also accurately reflect the sources, but failed.

If Pelmeen10 wants to continue claiming I ignored the consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then I think he needs to provide some evidence to support the claim. Otherwise, he is ignoring WP:AGF.

I have performed a few reverts in the section of the article in the past week, but this was because unsourced content was being added to the article and had nothing to do with the consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I said the above without looking at the article discussion. And frankly now that I have, I wouldn't want to talk to you on the talk page either. I see you proposed working together on wording an RfC which is excellent.

But then I see you said this "Nothing Tvx1 has to say on this subject has any value." and "I sm not insulting people. It is a simple statement of fact: Tvx1's only interest in these discussions is hounding me." which is quite the opposite. If you want to minimise your involvement with Tvx1, that is fine. But as I said above, if you have evidence that Tvx1 is hounding you, you need to open an ANI case and convince the community of this. Until you do so, you need to stop making accusations especially not on article talk pages, and especially where it's of little relevance. (The editor tried 3 ping 3 others, so it's not like they were only asking for Tvx1's opinion.)

As an uninvolved editor, seeing such random personal attacks makes me very reluctant to get involved in any discussion with you. Who knows if you're going to decide to attack me for no reason?

More generally, if I'm frank, this seems a very dumb issue to get so worked up about. The championship starts on the 23 January per the article. This means that by now, by the time any RfC closes, if it lasts the full 30 days, it will be moot point since the concerns will no longer hold. This doesn't mean it's okay to have inaccurate information, but can you all really not come to some sort of agreement to address all concerns? Have you consider keeping the table as is and using footnotes to clarify for example? Surely there's something you can do without needing an RfC. If you wanted an RfC to try and solve the issue for future years, that would be another thing, but it may be better to wait until this year's championship starts so people don't get too bogged down in the details specific to this year.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to implement a consensus version taking on board the concerns of both editors I can only hope it sticks of they take it from here since I don't think I can be bothered taking it further. Anyway I mainly came back to say if anyone does want an RfC, it is imperative that you agree on a wording beforehand and then focus on some brief explanation backed by our policy and guidelines for your preference. An RfC with extensive back and forths between existing participants like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally/Archive 3#Request for Comment on table format is likely doomed to failure. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the content-related help. But I started this topic because the behaviour of the mentioned user - ignoring consensus and editwarring into his own preferred version. I'm not convinced the user will stop this kind of behaviour. His previous user Prisonermonkeys was blocked several times for editwarring, I feel the only thing he is learned, is not to break 3RR (more than 3 reverts in 24h) and remove "undid revision..." from edit summaries. I mean, previous dispute was with not showing the possibility that the defending champion can choose number 1 for his car number (per the rules), I insisted TBA (no direct source for the numbers) & started a discussion here, later moved it here to get more feedback. These are the reverts Mclarenfan17 made: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] He reverted different users 21 times to a version with only #8 until left it alone. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

None of those edits provided a source to support the change of the number.

I would also like to point out that Pelmeen10 made a specific claim in that WT:MOTOR discussion. I repeatedly asked him to provide sources to support that claim and he refused. He instead insisted that the burden lay with people who disagreed with him to prove him wrong. The issue came up on the 2020 article talk page where he claimed that the numbers "were not directly sourced or official". My response was to provide four reliable sources, all of which debunked his original claim. Pelmeen10 replied to this by saying the issue was not being discussed, even though he brought the subject up in the first place.

It is obvious that Pelmeen10 wants to see some kind of admin action taken against me. However, the diffs he has provided show me reverting unsourced content and he himself has a bad habit of making unsourced claims and refusing to provide any sources in support of those claims when challenged. He has also taken to engaging in original research to reach the claims that he has made in the first place. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't really get the accusation you made. The content added to Wikipedia needs direct sources, not the other way around. The content shouldn't be wrong by adding more than sources actually write. I was challenging your added content, not you challenging me. While you're trying to boomerang this somehow, you are confusing something by providing 26 December talk, while the reverts I listed happened between 31 October and 21 November. So the issue did not come up just 2 days ago but was resolved on 21 November by you not reverting (examples [86] [87] [88]) the note that was suggested in the discussion. The note is now there from 21 November. The rule that defending champion can choose number one, is in the sporting regulations and you know it. I tryed adding the sporting regulations as a source on 3 November, which you reverted. "The issue" with other numbers was raised in 22 November here by two more users, Tvx1 and SSSB. I quote: Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that. - In any of the sources you provided, it was never mentioned that they can keep the same number year on year, nor was explained what the "career number" means. In the rules, they are still "seasonal numbers". Sorry for discussing content here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User Lightningstrikers

Lightningstrikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Today, a "newcomer" to WP by the name of Lightningstrikers, for his/her very first edits, swiftly reversed text six times in a matter of minutes in the occupational stress entry. Lightningstrikers did not justify the reversals. The edits, to say the least, were disruptive. Even the name Lightningstrikers suggests someone who is out swiftly make disruptive edits. I am concerned that he/she ‎is acting like someone who previously hassled me and was ultimately banned from WP after operating under the a number of names Mrm7171, Psych999, Mattbrown69, and 121.91.164.65. Iss246 (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted because it was un-sourced. Lightningstrikers (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

user:Lightningstrikers is using the same tactics as Mrm7171. That is a phony justification on two grounds. First, every editorial change he/she made this morning was unsourced. Second, the deletion of a sentence in the first paragraph he/she made today, was justified on the basis that the sentence was unsourced. However, there was an internal link in that sentence to the entry that justifies the sentence.

I add that the typical way to handle unsourced text is to mark the text as unsourced as a courtesy to the WP editor who wrote the text. And leave the marker there for a few weeks, to prompt the editor to add a source, which is what I did when I came across unsourced text in the occupational stress entry. Only after a few weeks with no response to the marker did I delete the unsourced text.

Finally, user:Lightningstrikers was operating in a manner that parallels the manner in which the banned Mrm7171 operated. Mrm7171 kept working against the occupational health psychology entry day after day. Lightningstrikers operated that way on the occupational stress entry by striking references to occupational health psychology in addition to other disruptive edits. Iss246 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers continues to undo my work on the occupational stress entry. He does not justify his edits. I would like the administrators to get him to stop. He previously went by the name Mrm7171. Iss246 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246, From the Lightningstrikers's talk page, they posted a message that says that the source didn't have the stated info, in which case it {{failed verification}} vs. was "unsourced". It is sourced.

I don't see the information in the cited source, either. It seems that the sentence about the CDC either needs to be reworded or needs another source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the information User:CaroleHenson. The CDC website only identifies occupational health psychology. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/default.html Iss246 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It does not identify abnormal psychology. It does not identify social psychology. It does not identify industrial/organizational psychology.... OHP is the only branch of psychology the CDC identifies in connection to occupational stress. To quote the CDC website, "Many psychologists have argued that the psychology field needs to take a more active role in research and practice to prevent occupational stress, illness, and injury. This is what the new field of Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) is all about." Iss246 (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246, How do you know that it only identifies occupational health psychology (i.e., Where on the page does it say that?) Or is there another page that shows what you're saying?

Would it work to define it? State it's a new field? Other?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It is now more than 20 years old. But that would still make it a new field. I will work on it. I think Lightningstrikers will revert it. Why don't you look at what I will write, and make editorial suggestions. Iss246 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers has a history back when he went by Mrm7171 to try to undermine occupational health psychology. Mrm7171 got banned from WP. Iss246 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers has been warned about reverting these edits. I have been chatting with them on their talk page and this seems to be a misunderstanding about the concept of "failed verification" and what goes in the lede/lead. I stated in my response that I don't believe that the lede must only include summarized article information... I think that if it sets the stage for the discussion in the article, it's cool to have it in the lede.

If they continue to revert without properly explaining their issue with the edits, I think it's likely that they will have escalating warnings and/or a temporary or more block.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, would you mind looking at my edit. If it isn't reverted, it should look like this:

Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job. Occupational stress often stems from pressures that do not align with a person's knowledge, skills, or expectations. Job stress can increase when workers do not feel supported by supervisors or colleagues, feel as if they have little control over work processes, or find that their efforts on the job are incomensurate with the job's rewards.[1] Although many different professionals work in the area of occupational stress, the CDC indicates that the relatively new field of occupational health psychology is "all about" research and practice aimed at the prevention of "occupational stress, illness, and injury."[2]

Thanks for your help.Iss246 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246, If you think Lightningstrikers is a sock of Mrm7171, you should file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations with your evidence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As a side comment, there haven't been edits on the page since 2014. See here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246, That looks good to me. One question, should it state "CDC of the United States" for context?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, that is a good question. The CDC can stand because it is arguably the best known health research organization in the world, even more than the WHO. But what I will do is place an internal link around it to help readers unfamiliar with the term. 06:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Iss246 and Lightningstrikers, I am not finding that either of you have bad intentions for the article. I think that each of you, though, have different approaches and the nature of the content that should go in the article. Is it possible for each of you to state your intention for the article - what motivates you to add or remove content based on how you think the article should be written? Perhaps comments on the article talk page will bring in any others that might like to add their thoughts.

I think that might be helpful in understanding each other's position... and coming to consensus on the addition of content to the article. For instance, it seems (If I understand correctly) that Lightningstrikers is concerned about making the article too US centric when it is an article that relates to the issue around the globe.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Rubyng2004

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

---

Rubyng2004 is repeatedly violating copyright infringement in creating new articles, a whopping ten of which have been deleted as a result. Their latest offense is Sandy Feldstein, during which s/he removed the speedy deletion nomination. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor created hoax article and did not explain or defend it

About a week ago i nominated Battle of Turkmen Sahra for deletion, since i suspected it to be a hoax. I asked the creator of the article, User:Amirhosein Izadi, to either provide sources to prove it was real or otherwise explain how or why the fake article was created. Since he failed to do either, the article was deleted as a hoax. This editor also added information that was unsupported by the given sources in his translation of the Farsi Wikipedia article on the Battle of Rasht. I cleaned it up to better reflect the original Farsi article. This editor doesn't seem to have stopped, his most recent article, Rasa Salim Tehrani, has a source with 0 google hits when in quotes (Persian poets in the court of the Mughal Empire). Since this editor has repeatedly added hoaxes to Wikipedia and doesn't defend or explain them, i believe it may be necessary to block him to prevent him from creating further hoaxes. Koopinator (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

According to the article Rasa Salim Tehrani, Rasa was the son of Mohammad Qoli Salim Tehrani. That article was created, as a translation from Persian WP, by User:Amirhosein Izadi on 24 December 2019. It contains more information than the original article, supported by completely unverifiable citations: authors in Latin script and titles in English of works which, if they exist, were surely published in Persian. One of those pieces of information is the name of his son, Rasa, who is unnamed in the Persian article. According to the English article, "In 1633, in honor of Shah Jahan and the birth of his son, Rasa, Tehrani Mathnawi wrote al-qada' wa'l-qadar, which is Tehrani greatest and most important work". It is perhaps surprising that the Persian article does not mention any such work; nor is it in Persian Wikisource (link in the Persian article), which only contains one short lyric. The dedication "in honor of Shah Jahan and the birth of his [own] son" strikes me as, at the very least, unusual.

There may be no connection, but the Persian article on Mohammad Qoli Salim Tehrani was created by a user named Rafic.Mufid (in Latin script); who has since been blocked as a WP:SOCK, see [89]; who is also known in English WP, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chyah.

If this is vandalism, it is of an extremely dangerous kind. Narky Blert (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There look to me to be also a large group of copyvios of AllMusic in the early articles created by the editor as seen at this link. At least one has been revdel'd already. Dekimasuよ! 16:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve prodded the hoax article for deletion. I wasn’t sure if this qualified under speedy deletion so I went with PROD instead just to be safe. If it turns out that this is just a massive hoax operation then we might have to speedy all of the fake articles. Michepman (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’

Dear Administors,

This user who started editing without signing and subsequently started using this (possibly others too) user profile user:NormanGear is a serial vandal and manipulator whose SOLE contributions on Wikipedia this far have been obsessive attempts to somehow make the Portuguese people more Jew/Berber than what they really are. Conversely, this very same user as I suspected, is trying to delete and like other Spanish/Hispanic users, minimise or delete altogether any of of the Spaniards’ Arab/Jewish ancestry. The edits speak by themselves on both the pages below. This user has now even resorted to play the victim card, when their only actions have been to disrupt, manipulate, vandalise and offend. I trust this user/issue will be resolved and as per my repeated requests, the Portuguese people page is made permanently semi-protected from this kind of repeated nefariousness:

Same user with several (possibly more) aliases

IP 46.222.138.139,
IP 84.78.247.214 

and now signing as user:NormanGear.

This sockpuppet was created only last week with the sole purpose of malicious editing against this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people

and conversely, try and rid the equivalent Spanish people/Spaniards of exactly the same contents which are totally relevant to Spain, more than to Portugal

See recent history where it shows their activity:

Extended content.

version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) curprev 16:22, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,256 bytes +1‎ Disambiguation undo curprev 16:21, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,255 bytes -655‎ Removed sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’s malicious edit once again. Their sole contribution is Mooris/Jewish genetics attempt to Portuguese people only. Going to add ALL sources to Spanish people as Iberia is mainly Spain and the Spanish page desperately tries to hide the Moors and Jews. undo curprev 09:31, 27 December 2019‎ Rodw talk contribs‎ m 88,910 bytes +8‎ Disambiguating links to Berber (link changed to Berbers) using DisamAssist. undothank curprev 18:11, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,902 bytes -1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:10, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,903 bytes +35‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:08, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,868 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 18:07, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,867 bytes +25‎ Deleted phrase not supported by the source. Added literal phrase from the source itself. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 07:44, 23 December 2019‎ PohranicniStraze talk contribs‎ m 88,842 bytes 0‎ sp undothank curprev 13:40, 22 December 2019‎ DumbBOT talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -15‎ removing a protection template from a non-protected page (info) undo curprev 16:27, 21 December 2019‎ EncMstr talk contribs‎ 88,857 bytes +15‎ + undothank curprev 16:24, 21 December 2019‎ EncMstr talk contribs‎ m 88,842 bytes 0‎ Protected "Portuguese people": Edit warring / content dispute ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC))) undothank curprev 16:10, 21 December 2019‎ KylieTastic talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -244‎ Reverted 5 edits by Melroross: Not valid - the correct place would be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but its not valdalism it looks more like a difference of opinion (TW) undothank Tag: Undo curprev 15:59, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,086 bytes -8‎ Protection undo curprev 15:58, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,094 bytes +8‎ Protection undo curprev 15:58, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,086 bytes -8‎ undo curprev 15:57, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,094 bytes -30‎ undo curprev 15:56, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 89,124 bytes +282‎ Semi-protecting undo curprev 15:56, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:55, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,841 bytes -75‎ I reverse the issue until I discuss the problem. I have started a thread in Talk. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:35, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ Undid revision 931835326 by NormanGear (talk) Requested permanent Block for all IP addresses used so far. Several profiles signed and unsigned by one same individual with the sole purpose of Vandalism undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:34, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -74‎ Undid revision 931835326 by NormanGear (talk) Requested permanent Block for all IP addresses used so far. Several profiles signed and unsigned by one same individual with the sole purpose of Vandalism undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:29, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ The fact there are other articles where this information is specified does not give the right to delete it in this article. And the previous sentence is not supported by the source attached. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 15:20, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -74‎ Undid revision 931834084 by NormanGear (talk) this is already in the Genetics of the Iberian Peninsula. What is the obsession with Jews and Moors? undo Tag: Undo curprev 15:17, 21 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 88,916 bytes +74‎ Extracted faithful fragments from the source: "Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources." "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low" undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit curprev 14:21, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes 0‎ Undid revision 931827447 by 84.78.247.214 (talk) same Vandalism edits undo Tag: Undo curprev 14:20, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -968‎ Undid revision 931827335 by 84.78.247.214 (talk) Undid repeated MALICIOUS edits form unidentified Hispanic IP address based in Alarcon undo Tag: Undo curprev 14:08, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes 0‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 14:07, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes +968‎ Recovered, the sources are scientific studies, not opinions. The source itself used in this article and the two new ones added by me state that Jewish and North African genetics are quite significant. And that is concentrated in the western half of the Peninsula. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 13:39, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,842 bytes -968‎ Undid biased, unsigned edit. Al Andalus genetic mark already has a sub section on this page undo curprev 09:32, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes -1‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:27, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,811 bytes +1‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:26, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,810 bytes -16‎ Third source: "The most striking division in North African ancestry proportions is between the western half of the peninsula, where the proportion is relatively high, to the eastern half, where it is relatively low" undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:11, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,826 bytes -24‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:07, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,850 bytes -2‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 09:06, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 89,852 bytes +1,010‎ The source used states that there is 19.8% of Jewish admixture and 10% North Africa. That is not limited or little. I have added more sources. undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:48, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 88,842 bytes 0‎ undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 08:14, 21 December 2019‎ 84.78.247.214 talk‎ 88,842 bytes -8‎ Not lead. Voyages of Christopher Columbus was the major event in the Age of Discovery undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 21:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,850 bytes +163‎ More cited sources undo curprev 20:57, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,687 bytes +190‎ Sourced quote, previously deleted by unsigned Spanish IP address undo curprev 20:51, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,497 bytes +246‎ Undid revision 931670991 by 46.222.138.139 (talk) undo Tag: Undo curprev 17:05, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,251 bytes +121‎ Religious affiliation data source undo curprev 16:55, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,130 bytes 0‎ Comma undo curprev 16:54, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 88,130 bytes +159‎ Hasdingi sourced content undo curprev 16:45, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,971 bytes +98‎ More on Suebians undo curprev 16:40, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,873 bytes +87‎ Sourced content undo curprev 16:32, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,786 bytes +193‎ Pre Celt sourced undo curprev 16:23, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,593 bytes +85‎ Goths sourced quote undo curprev 16:23, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,508 bytes +70‎ Goths sourced quote undo curprev 16:01, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 87,438 bytes +236‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 15:28, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,908 bytes +76‎ Sourced content undo curprev 15:18, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,832 bytes +53‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 15:13, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,779 bytes +316‎ Added sourced quotes undo curprev 15:10, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced content undo curprev 15:08, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes -62‎ Sourced quote undo curprev 15:08, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced undo curprev 15:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes -62‎ Sourced quote after malicious reversal by anonymous Spanish user IP address 46.222.138.139 undo curprev 15:04, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,463 bytes +62‎ Sourced quote after malicious reversal by anonymous Spanish user IP address 46.222.138.139 undo curprev 14:50, 20 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 86,401 bytes +558‎ Undid revision 931670638 by 46.222.138.139 (talk) undo Tag: Undo curprev 12:01, 20 December 2019‎ 46.222.138.139 talk‎ 85,843 bytes -246‎ There were other powers that lead the Age of Discovery. Removed parts without contrast undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 11:57, 20 December 2019‎ 46.222.138.139 talk‎ 86,089 bytes -558‎ Unsourced undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 12:22, 17 December 2019‎ Trappist the monk talk contribs‎ m 86,647 bytes +135‎ →‎Pre-Roman groups: cite repair; undothank curprev 12:16, 17 December 2019‎ Trappist the monk talk contribs‎ m 86,512 bytes +5‎ →‎Portuguese ancestry in the Brazilian population: cite repair; undothank curprev 04:16, 17 December 2019‎ Boghog talk contribs‎ 86,507 bytes -1,226‎ consistent citation formatting undothank curprev 04:14, 17 December 2019‎ Boghog talk contribs‎ 87,733 bytes +649‎ Alter: title, pmc, url, template type. Add: isbn, bibcode, title. Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Converted bare reference to cite template. Removed parameters. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here. | via #UCB_Gadget undothank (newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) Now see what they did in the Spanish people/Spaniards page, he deleted all my edits which are absolutely valid, historical, academic and duly cited from reputed sources. Basically, since I noticed this malicious vandalism, they’ve subsequently opted for the ‘softy soft’ approach and try to make me out as the one who is bias. Here are their latest edits where they deleted my contributions on the Spanish page... basically trying to ‘dump’ racially motivated content in the Portuguese people page and get rid of anything remotely similar in the Spanish equivalent... why you would do that is beyond my comprehension. And this is what they did in their page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards curprev 16:47, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 66,350 bytes +432‎ Sourced content added undo curprev 16:28, 27 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 65,918 bytes +20‎ Undid revision 932543802 by NormanGear (talk) This sockpuppet user is adding Moors/Jews to Portuguese people page and trying to delete it from the Spanish page. Reported isser for permanent block. Malicious vandalism. undo Tag: Undo curprev 18:17, 26 December 2019‎ NormanGear talk contribs‎ 65,898 bytes -20‎ Reverted to the previous edition. undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit curprev 16:09, 23 December 2019‎ Carlstak talk contribs‎ 65,918 bytes -13‎ ce undothank curprev 10:11, 23 December 2019‎ Frem3 talk contribs‎ 65,931 bytes +1‎ undothank Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit curprev 16:28, 21 December 2019‎ Melroross talk contribs‎ 65,930 bytes -10‎ Biased language trying to minimise over 800 years of Islamic presence in Spain undo curprev 03:41, 19 December 2019‎ BrugesFR talk contribs‎ 65,940 bytes +8‎ →‎See also undothank curprev 17:15, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,932 bytes -9‎ undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:13, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,941 bytes -8‎ undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:09, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 65,949 bytes -1,560‎ WP:SYNTHESIS undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 17:02, 17 December 2019‎ TheseusHeLl talk contribs‎ 67,509 bytes -10‎ removed misrepresentation of sources by the blocked socks of JamesOredan undothank Tag: Visual edit curprev 19:21, 16 December 2019‎ Pelirojopajaro talk contribs‎ 67,519 bytes 0‎ US number was duplicated undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

So it’s basically like ‘Wanting to have the cake and eat it’. Not acceptable.Melroross (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the next step is to block User:Melroross for personal attacks. Whatever the merits of the change may be, calling NormanGear a 'serial vandal and manipulator' and referring to his 'malicious edits' is not acceptable. Also the complaint by Melroross that NormanGear is socking appears to be questionable. I have modified the title of this thread to remove some attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Note that this concerns the same issue as the section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Melroross above. The thing that I don't get is why anyone thinks that saying that a group of people has Berber and Jewish ancestry is an insult. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• note that I did advise Melrose here that it wasn't vandalism and "MALICIOUS edits" and to address the content not the editor. Also that moving from an IP to an account was not Sock puppetry and NormanGear had told me here that they would only edit from the account. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(talk page stalker) In my opinion, from looking at Talk:Portuguese people#Edit war, there seems to be a couple of things happening.. unhelpful rhetoric and verbose comments from User:Melroross and what appears to be a misunderstanding by User:NormanGear, who could ensure that when adding content it is 1) Relevant and applicable to the article and 2) restates content from the source. It seems like NormanGear is clear about restating the source. What seems to be falling short is ensuring that the content is applicable and relevant to the Portuguese people, which is about people of the country of Portugal.

Perhaps calmness, brevity to the key issue(s) (like in "Just the facts, Ma'am"), and seeking to understand (vs. focusing only on being understood) would help.––CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If you scroll up a bit on that talk page, you see [90]

All Brazilian, all sharing a common hatred against the Portuguese. Illegal migrants who got kicked out or refused entry in Portugal? Definitely a serious grudge there. Wikipedia is not the place for such behaviour.

which is IMO more than just unhelpful rhetoric. Of course, there's no reason why they should be posting IP details there anyway.

Even [91]

As I wrote here before, the regular Vandals on this page are almost invariably Brazilians or Hispanics (Spanish & Hispanic-Americans) who hold historical grudges and resentment against the Portuguese. You are just another one.

is very very far from an acceptable comment.

Of course even the opening comment says

like other Spanish/Hispanic users

and the heading mentions Spanish. At a minimum, I'll say the editor seems to have major WP:AGF problems when it comes to Spanish and Brazilian editors.

Then there's this edit summary [92]

User displays serious mental health issues

While User:JeremyVaz was clearly a problem editor, hence why they are now indeffed, there's no need to comment on another editor's mental health.

Frankly the editor is lucky to escape with only a 72 hours IMO. BTW, there is a thread #User Melroross in case anyone missed it. IMO they should consider themselves on very thin ice from now on.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Those postings are a bit scarey and I am surprised that they haven't been removed. I have never seen someone out user's names and email addresses, even when investigating known sockpuppets the user's names and email addresses aren't outed. Shouldn't they be removed?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Spacejam2 reported by Elizium23

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Spacejam2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Lauri Ylönen: vandalism after final warning. Adding unsourced cats at a high rate of speed, warned excessively for plenty of other things. Accused me of vandalism. Elizium23 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Spacejam2:

• has been cautioned about adding unsourced categories, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Requested block.
• also called me a vandal for reverting his unsourced edit, and may need show more caution about using this edit summary, see [93].
• has been reported in the past for edit waring over that very same topic (MTV Europe Music Award), see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive397#User:Spacejam2 reported by User:Earthh (Result: Stale) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive356#User:Spacejam2 reported by User:Earthh (Result: Warned user(s)). Magnolia677 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

29cwcst caused chaotic dispute which led to unstable event name change

• 29cwcst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I going make this simple. This editor caused a disruptive chaotic dispute which led the admin pushed to insert an undiscussed event name change. 1 Does not seem harmless. 2. This person seem to be called out multiple times of same non constrictive or similar disruptive edits. More likely looping as i see it. 3 Regice2020 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing a talk thread that was literally copied from User talk:Regice2020#UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regice2020 With all due respect mate, I have much better and far more important things to do with my life than to monitor every page on Wikipedia all the time. If you want me to follow certain editing guidelines, make sure that they're actually consistent first by seeing that the same applies to all Wikipedia pages belonging to a certain category. Rather than taking the liberty of reverting all my edits, send me a copy of these guidelines instead - bottom line it for me. Is there something wrong with me or something? Probably. But if it weren't for vandals and savvier editors who were couldn't actually be bothered to do the research or put the onus of responsibility of themselves to either fix or expand certain pages, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems. That's what annoys me because the page did not have to be protected to that extent so, yes, clearly I do have a problem with those editors. It literally takes five seconds to revert. Besides, if the name of the page doesn't appear on the poster of the event or topic it pertains to, it needs to and should be moved accordingly. I'll never understand why I needed to seek permission for moving these kinds of pages - if I thought the page didn't require a more appropriate title, I wouldn't have tried changing it so many times. Hopefully, users like you will better understand the reasons behind moving the titles of certain pages, particularly in regard to UFC events. It's just like I previously mentioned - whatever the name of the main event fight is, it will always appear on the poster and that is what should appear in the title of the page. If these two things don't align, the page needs to be moved. Hopefully, other editors like yourself will also understand this better as well, courtesy of those like yours truly (29cwcst) and Anthony Appleyard. Cheers buddy, please refrain from disturbing me in the future. 29cwcst | 21:05 AEDT, 17 November 2019 29cwcst also made a harmful posting on my talk page which support his technical move request for a page he created. The best option for this part. The page move https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_Fight_Night:_Zabit_vs._Kattar to be invalided alongside the Requested move 13 November 2019 as there no discussion made in the first place or given enough time to react. 1

I do not know if the person has another account and using this account just to be disruptive. There should be a permanent solution to resolve this issue. Also been warned by @CASSIOPEIA: for MMA edits and @Squared.Circle.Boxing: for Boxing edits.Regice2020 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Above, I replaced a copied talk thread from User talk:Regice2020 with a link to the original discussion. The earlier dispute was about how to properly change the name of an MMA event. Separately, the poster, Regice2020, is pointing out that User:29cwcst has received numerous warnings on their talk page. This is true, but it's unclear why any one of these issues is now ripe for action here. I suggest that this complaint against User:29cwcst be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Music Publisher s

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

---

Music Publisher s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suspected a COI and started a discussion at WP:COIN but the involved party is reverting discussion there and claiming I am harassing them. Need some intervention to allow the COIN discussion to play out. MB 03:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Counter-report

User:MB is Harassing me & Engaging in Disruptive editing of my pages, this stems from User:MB adding a COI to one of the pages I recently published then I informed User:MB that I was not connect and now User:MB is engaging in targeted Harassment of me & further Deceptive editing Please help ASAP as I am worried about my safety from User:MB Music Publisher s (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would you be worried about your safety? Has MB said anything specific? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, Music Publisher s, MB's concern about a conflict of interest seems legitimate. You have edited solely on Pro Music Rights (PMR) and related topics. Per WP:PAID, you must disclose if you are being compensated in any way by another entity for editing on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see anything that MB did that is either disruptive or harassing. They raised legitimate concerns that, because your account has shown a singular focus on editing articles related to PMR(P), you may have a conflict of interest or other connection to the subject. They have also expressed legitimate concerns about the title of the article. Neither of those rise to the level of harassment. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OP is CU blocked. Meters (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 has made a CU block. Is it alright to G5 delete that page (not sure who the sockmaster is)? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

G5'ed and rolled back. —C.Fred (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Unauthorized bot-like editing

Special:Contributions/2001:E68:60CB:B01:0:0:0:0/64

• Please review Special:Redirect/logid/104546389. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who reported the IP range at AIV. I recognize that normally before reporting editors to AIV, one should give them proper warnings on their talk page; however in this instance, the editing was occurring so quickly that I decided it was pointless to do so. I apologize if this was incorrect. Regarding the edits, I've checked some of the BLP birth date changes the range made and in instances where a reference gave a birth date that disagreed with what the IP put in, I reverted. I also made this reversion which, I will freely admit was probably a bit hasty, as I don't know for sure that the numbers were changed incorrectly. Please feel free to undo my revert if I was in the wrong here. Thank you! –Erakura^(talk) 04:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I just reverted all their edits, since whichever ones I checked contradicted the source, so quite obviously a date-changing vandal. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969 - Excessive deletions on page for SAIL High School

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

---

• Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 73.64.26.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• SAIL High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor has deleted the majority of the page, including sections that include required citations and quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.64.26.5 (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the deletions seem appropriate to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
73.64.26.5, please disclose your connection to the school, if any. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Content added need to be supported by independent, reliable source for verification by the editor who added/change the content as per WP:PROVEIT guidelines. Most of the deletion seems appropriate. user 73.64.26.5 edited only in the said page above thus a possible sign of COI here. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an everyday content dispute, and as a non-admin I cannot see why admin intervention might be needed at this time. This is a matter for the article Talk Page. All the deletions complained about appear to have been made after individual consideration. This is not a case of indiscriminate blanking. Narky Blert (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User Snowflake91 keeps deleting Son Chaeyoung from the Twice page

Son Chaeyoung is a member of Twice, a k-pop girl group from South Korea. She is the main rapper who is also a lyrcist of multiple Twice songs and also a composer of their song 'How you doin'. People have tried several times to enter her information here but an administrator, Snowflake91, keeps deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2E80:4E5:C65:F7E9:47BC:54E0 (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Chaeyoung is mentioned seven times on the Twice (group) page. 86.143.230.229 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Chaeyoung is not linked in the current version of the article. That's because - as you can see from its history - it keeps going from an article to a redirect to an article to a redirect, something which has been going on since June 2019. I'll be adding the {{subst:ANI-notice}} to the talk pages of the users this is relevant to asap - that may take some time. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Chaeyoung is not notable yet per WP:NMUSIC and article doesnt even exists (it redirects back to the Twice page), so case closed. It was also rejected at Draft:Chaeyoung. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what I can add to this discussion and not sure why we are at ANI. Please note that Snowflake91 is not an administrator. There have been a lot of problems with members of Twice pages being in a article-redirect war before, and before a lot of work this year most of them didn't have pages because they were not notable or sources where not reliable. At that time not only Snowflake91, but also myself and other users active around kpop articles in my opinion acted according to policy in changes those pages back to redirects. Unfortunately we get a lot of single issue editors with their only goal being their favorite idol getting a page on Wikipedia, regardless of any established policy or rules. Most of the time pages with only trivia and sources that fail WP:KO/RS are used. In my opinion it is no problem for users only to focus on a single page, but here we have someone with no other edits reporting a user at ANI because they don't like it? Chaeyoung is the last member that does not have a page yet because her previous page clearly is not up to standard. I think for the moment the redirect is as it should be and appreciate the work at Draft:Chaeyoung. My reasons for declining the draft are on the talk pages, but since that time the draft has improved. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

And am I understanding correctly if in this case the problem is Snowflake is reverting an addition of an internal link to Chaeyoung on the Twice page? Since Chaeyoung is a redirect to Twice that would only create a loop back to Twice so I see no problems with the removal of those additions. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Circular redirects like this should indeed be removed – see WP:SELFRED. Narky Blert (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kenneth Saclote

Kenneth Saclote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from their first block and continued the same exact vandalism and disruptive editing practices that got them blocked the first time. I made a section for this user here a week ago when we were receiving much trouble because of them, but my report fell through the cracks I guess and was never addressed. Now, Kenneth Saclote has continued making more disruptive edits. Many of these acts have occurred on the Miss Universe 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Miss World 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) articles. Kenneth Saclote has added numerous unsourced content or has added fake sources that do not actually support the information they're adding to appear as if the information is actually sourced: Ex., Ex., Ex., Ex., amongst many other instances. Kenneth Saclote additionally is removing sources, claiming that there is no need for them on Wikipedia (Ex. and Ex.). Kenneth Saclote has been given many warnings, including a final warning, but has continued their editing passed each warning and seems to have no interest in following policies or talking to more experienced editors about the problems with their edits. He is making WikiProject Beauty Pageants articles extremely damaged, and we'd like something to be done. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur. As stated before, there may be a WP:CIR issue ☆ Bri (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Obvious block evasion

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

---

It's obvious that SwarSadhak (talk · contribs) is evading his latest EW block by @Bbb23:, editing as 2605:6000:1019:43CB:102E:48FC:58FF:940B (talk · contribs), continuing the edit war, making identical edits: [94], [95]. Please block the IP and consider extending the latest EW block on SwarSadhak. Toddst1 (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Promotional editing and ownership in userspage

I came across Jeremy E York's userpage. To be sure, he's not a new user, but he has it set up to promote his music, which is a violation of what we cannot have in our user pages. To add to that, he has an html comment that greets you when you click the edit button stating:

<  !-- NOTE: I don't care if you are just an regular wikipedian or an administrator, DO NOT make any changes to my user page. If you have a concern, you ASK me on my user talk page. You have no authority to make ANY changes whatsoever to my user page. If you do, it WILL be reported as vandalizism (sic).-->

It's not just at the top, it appears at the beginning of each sub-section..

Normally, I'd clear the self-promotion away and leave him a note on his talk page, but considering that note, it's probably better if an admin addreses this. I have already notified him about this as well.Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I had an ultra quick look through to check for promotionalism that was directed in a paid sense, which I didn't spot any. As such, Necromonger is correct, but probably can be dealt with by Talk Page discussion (just wanted to confirm that no "right this instant" action needed to be taken). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem although I would be happy to remove those comments which don't belong on any page here. The issue for me is the energy spent by a user on their user pages versus energy spent on improving the encyclopedia. There may be a problem in that when I checked recent edits at Richard Marx discography I found they rearranged a link, namely Beautiful Goodbye: the problem is that that link is also on the user page. It might be worth seeing what other edits are performed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

If you take a look at my edit history, you'll see that that is incorrect. Main page edit counts far exceeds my user page edit counts. Plus I hadn't really done anything to it in almost a year until just recently. And please state the source of your concern about the Beautiful Goodbye link you say I rearranged. That makes no sense. Jeremyeyork (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock Request

Could I have an Admin who is up on their rangeblocks to see if any convenient one will handle 201.247.43.183, 190.62.251.218 and 79.223.169.218? Identical image-based vandalism coming through Nosebagbear (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

These three IPs are too far apart for a rangeblock. It would be better just to semiprotect the talk page at User talk:CLCStudent, which has already been done. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The request was actually made with respect to the broader damage, as TP had already been protected, but thank you for checking the ranges Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Throwacoup

User Throwacoup has uploaded about a dozen promotional photographs of M. K. Asante through the years that are likely to not be fheirs. On commons I know how to nominate a batch of photos for deletion, I'm unsure how to do so on enwiki. 1Veertje (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• Throwacoup (talk · contribs)
  The uploads are at Special:ListFiles/Throwacoup. Someone understanding image copyright issues is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm an admin on Commons: these are too pro to be accepted without OTRS verification. 1Veertje (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  I am rather dubious on these images. For one thing, the resolution and the lack of EXIF speak of images taken from somewhere.

  One particular image, File:MK Asante 2013 photo.jpg, appears elsewhere on the Internet and is credited to "Lee Steffen" which appears to be Lee Steffen - that article says they cooperate with MK Asante. Depending on how exactly this cooperation works, the copyright might belong eiter to Mr. Steffen or Mr. Asante (if it's a work for hire situation).

  Since it's not that many files, I'd nominate them all at WP:FFD, manually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject, the article M. K. Asante could be a bit less fawning. Apparently he had a troubled yet profound youth in Philadelphia, whatever that means. EEng 21:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed split

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

---

• Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, we discussed splitting the article Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen to a new article. This editor(Onetwothreeip) participated in the discussion and I suggested Foreign involvement in the Yemeni Civil War, just like we have Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Foreign involvement in the Spanish Civil War. This discussion took place months ago. Three days ago the editor (Onetwothreeip) who was opposing the split, splitted the article to NATO involvement in the Yemeni Civil War without discussing it. There is not a single mention of the word NATO in the talk page. The article got nominated for deletion. I am afraid that this will lead to the split being unaccepted because it has been nominated for deletion. So can any admin remove that article and I will do the split that most editors agreed with and it is consistent with other articles titles? --SharabSalam (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Update, I have changed the title per the discussion of the split and also added other content of the involvement of other parties.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion favoured splitting the sections, and I supported the split as well. I don't have strong views on what the title of the new article should be, so I boldly named it with "NATO" as the talk page discussion didn't come to an agreement on any name. The article only discusses American and British involvement (some from France as well), so it's not accurate to call this "Foreign" as there are many other foreign parties to the conflict. I don't mind the name of the article being changed so really we can snow close this as no further action needed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

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

• Rosguill, this editor has split the article to a new article called NATO involvement without any discussion about it. The term NATO is not even mentioned in the article talk page. Isn't this disruptive? The article title was designed to be called POVFORK. It was as if it was saying delete me. Now an editor who obviously seems not to be informed about the subject of the article is insisting that the article is a POVFORK even after I added all parties and fixed the title issue.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, per the comment that they made above, Onetwothreeip doesn't have any issue with you renaming the page. The disagreements and misunderstanding related to the AfD is something that should be discussed in the AfD discussion. I don't see any reason for this issue to be addressed at ANI at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  Rosguill, So... are you saying that it was OKAY for him to just split the article to that name without even informing us? This whole AfD wouldnt have occurred if this editor didnt title it that way. Yet, this editor gets no warning, absolutely nothing for this disruptive act.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, the discussion was stale, there was a consensus to move but no consensus of what title to move it to. NATO was not mentioned in the discussion, so it was a valid attempt at a Bold solution to the problem. Perhaps Onetwothreeip should have realized that you were likely to oppose this, but I see nothing sanctionable here. If this was behavior that was being repeated over and over again despite it having been contested brought to that editors attention, then ANI would be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)