Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:17, 25 December 2019

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

HiLo48's incivility on Talk:Bruce_Pascoe

I would request an admin have a word with HiLo48. He seems to be getting more and more incivil over at Talk:Bruce_Pascoe. He started off ok, in Talk:Bruce_Pascoe#status_as_Indigeneous_and_sourcing he states
I draw your attention to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. That means we don't make nasty allegations about other editors.
The sarcasm isn't productive. Not a sign of assuming good faith.
However, starting in Talk:Bruce_Pascoe#Lead_paragraph he begins showing incivility pretty quickly
Thanks for reinforcing my point IP editor, and also showing a refusal to learn how to discuss things properly on a Misplaced Pages Talk page. No indenting. No signature. No registration (especially important since your IP address keeps changing). Bad faith comments. I think WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED allows us to ignore any further comments from you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

He really gets going in the Rfc on the page with

Oh FFS, yet another non-indented comment by a random IP editor. PLEASE learn how to edit, and please register a name. It gives you greater anonymity, and helps us all follow conversations more easily. (Were you attempting to explicitly reply to someone else there, or is this just another repetitive point being hurled into the mix?) He continues in the same vein in the Rfc with Who wrote that? It's been a long time since I've participated in page of discussion with so many incompetent editors. But you did get me laughing out loud. The very first thing your link brought up was link to a Misplaced Pages article, List of Indigenous Australian group names, a title clearly avoiding the use of the word "tribe", and from this very encyclopaedia. Thank you for proving me right. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC) (this was a reply to one of my messages
When I reminded him to essentially assume good faith, his response was :

Yet another post that stuffed up the indenting, and this time from a seemingly experienced editor. Why has this discussion attracted so many incompetent editors? As for "...let's not comment on the commentators", Misplaced Pages depends on reliable sources, so we must ALWAYS be judging the reliability of what is presented as sourcing for content here, AND commenting on it when it fails that test.

It seems to be he's getting entrenched by this issue and might need a quick word spoken to him by an admin, however, If I'm wrong, feel free to close this out, I'm good with that ! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Clearly several personal attacks. Kirbanzo  16:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

IPs & editors who either don't know how or simply don't bother to indent there posts properly, can be quite frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no love for HiLo48 and have found him to be at times unacceptably abrasive, uncivil, and insufferable. But the above !diffs are rather tame in comparison to his usual diatribes, and likely not actionable. I agree with GoodDay that non-indenting, and refusing to comply with requests to indent, together constitute an extremely frustrating practice that try the collective patience of experienced editors.--WaltCip (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The bad behavior of one person neither mandates nor even excuses the bad behavior of another. Whether or not the IP editor has done things they should not have done has no bearing on whether or not HiLo48 has also done things they should not have done. Other responses by HiLo48 to the bad behavior of others are entirely possible, and I would say, are preferred over the reactions noted above. CIR also applies to knowing how to treat people with decency, and when an editor has been around as long has they have and still don't seem to understand how to do so, perhaps there's a lack of competency there that needs to be addressed. --Jayron32 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, yet another attempt to silence me via this noticeboard. I will comment here, hopefully only once, because I know that in cases like mine where I have tackled many often wilfully ignorant, POV pushers over the years, including some Admins, it will simply become a place for those who hate me to pile on more of that hate, with massive amounts of lies and exaggerations, along with raising truckloads of hugely irrelevant material. It's what's happened in the past. This is possibly the worst place on Misplaced Pages for the achievement of anything like truth, fairness and justice. There is never any consequence for those who pile on with their lies and misrepresentations.

In the case of the IP editor at Talk:Bruce Pascoe, I suspect I have probably been more kind and more polite than any other editor on Misplaced Pages. It is my habit, in the hope of encouraging good editing, to always welcome new editors to the project. I did so in this case, with the standard, template driven welcome on his Talk page. In addition, because I had already seen this editor struggling with many aspects of how to properly comment here, but especially with indenting, I also gave him a personal welcome in my own words, explaining how indenting works and pointing him at some extra material that should have helped on his journey here. One normally hopes for some improvement after doing something like that, but in this case, nothing. I suspect those already attacking me above are completely unaware of these actions I took to try to help this editor, but I'm not surprised. After my welcomes and advice, he continued to completely fail to indent at all for a while, then after a few more prompts from me and others, started seemingly randomly indenting all over the place, even further destroying the flow of conversation there. It's important that anyone trying to fairly judge this scenario has a look at that Talk page, not just at its current form, which is bad enough, but at earlier versions. The mess this editor and a couple of other clearly novice editors were making on that page led to some more experienced editors trying to clean it up. It has meant to that many comments, including mine, were moved, even within the flow of conversation, something I don't really feel comfortable with at all. Because that editor has a constantly changing IP address, making conversation even more difficult to follow, I also advised him of the problems with that, and advised him more than once how important it is to register on Misplaced Pages. Again, nothing, just more repetition of the same arguments over and over again, coming from different IP addresses, but probably close enough to indicate it was the same person. (Can't be certain though, can we?)

It's worth pointing out for those who won't look properly that the topic on that page is one about race, always a difficult and divisive one.

I do have limited patience. This editor is clearly incompetent, and unwilling to cooperate with our policies. He has ignored an awful lot of good and well intentioned advice from me, and continued to waste my time and that of others on that Talk page. I am not the problem there. The IP editor in question is, along with several others who continue to ignore policy and the sound, source based arguments of others. I'll stop now, and probably ignore this page for a few days. I know from past experience here there is no point arguing with haters and POV pushers. (My opinion on that front will change when I see any consequence at all for anyone who piles onto this case with irrelevant, off-topic hate comments about me.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• No one is trying to silence you. What they are trying to do is to get you to stop being rude to others. It isn't complicated. When you speak to other people, choose words and phrases and sentences that are polite and civil, and no one will bother you. It is possible to express any idea you want without doing so in a way that belittles or abuses others. --Jayron32 12:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The issue here isn't the IPs. The issue here is that in your efforts to guide them in the right direction your tone noticeably shifts to one that is more hostile - which constitutes straying into personal attack territory. Also, some points:

1. It appears you need to be more tolerant of IP editors. Not everyone wants a name associated with their edits and are fine just leaving their current IP address. You can encourage them, yes, but near the end of the tone shift it seems more like applying undue pressure than encouragement. The constantly changing IP is a different problem - you might want to look into why this is the case, since they might have a valid reason for why it is changing.

2. While indenting is helpful when dealing with replies, and is standard practice, you're not required to do it. Wiki markup is not exactly the easiest to learn; it certainly took me a bit. Again, you seem to be putting undue pressure upon them to indent near the end of the tone shift, instead of encouragement. I understand you took steps to try and teach them, but we must remain civil throughout discussions.

3. The editors here aren't out to get you, we're just noticing a problem that may need administrator intervention. Please assume good faith, and consider this something you may need to improve on. Doing so would help prevent discussions like this in the future, as taking constructive criticism and using it to improve will fix the issues that have been brought up

As for the IP editor in question, as we do not know their identity we cannot make too many assumptions as to why they are neglecting to learn how to indent and other aspects. However, I am inclined to say that we should not bite them as other than this peculiarity, there seems to be no other issue (as while you said the article in question is about race. you said nothing about if their comments were constructive or not).

Hopefully I've cleared up this discussion enough so you can make a solid defense and not have to misrepresent anything. Kirbanzo  22:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Everyone should do their best to indent properly but I sometimes mess it up, even after 10 years of editing. Indenting is simply not worth getting all upset about. WMF and Misplaced Pages policies permit IP editing, so asking an IP editor to register an account in the midst of a disagreement is out of line and unlikely to be received well. Humans are capable of deciding not to be frustrated or irritated by trivialities beyond their control. I recommend that HiLo48 try to learn that lesson. Improved patience comes from a conscious decision to be more patient. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What Cullen said. The encyclopedia content is the important issue here, not how someone indents on talk pages. It is almost always obvious what is a reply to what. To me indentation seems obvious, and so Cullen should either have used two colons rather than three (and that made it difficult for me to decide how to indent this), or, if the reply was supposed to be to Jayron above, have put this comment immediately after that, but in the past I have had my correct indentation changed to incorrect, and have on many occasions quietly fixed bad indentation without comment. It seems that what is obvious to me, and perhaps to you, is for some reason not obvious to other editors. Part of the problem is that WP:INDENT is far too long - it should simply say, "indent your edit at one more level than the edit that you are replying to, and put it after any other reply to the same edit." Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. What I said above has been underlined by the edit conflict with Kirbanzo above. We are now even further from ideal indenting, but the discussion is still perfectly clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of being contentious, might I suggest that expecting everyone who comments on an article talk page to understand obscure markup language might seem a little unnecessary in 2019? Misplaced Pages promotes itself as 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', and the WMF raises large sums of money on that basis. Maybe a little less sniping at newcomers and a bit more pressure on the WMF to put some of their funds towards creating an interface suitable for normal non-techie types might not go amiss. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, for years I've been encouraging WMF to develop what I propose we call a "Visual Editor". It's hard to see what could go amiss. EEng 14:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Our comments are falling on deaf ears. HiLo has already said he does not plan on paying attention to this page. We need to either go to his talk page -- or frankly block him, to get his attention.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's be fair, the anon-IP started the problem, and it wasn't just bad indenting. They were pushing a strong bias against the BLP subject, and weren't listening and responding to anybody's attempt to explain policy/guidelines/practices on anything. I'm not posting a link, because you really have to look at the totality of anon IP comments on the talk page. I was personally tempted to just blank some of the IPs comments, since they seemed disruptive (but I know that's a blockable offense). HiLo48 can't be criticized for not trying to help the IP get better, but rather their mistake is the opposite, they should have just ignored the IP entirely. Every attempt by HiLo48 to explain things to the IP triggered another reply, which wasn't indented or responsive, which triggered another, and so on. --Rob (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We all deal with difficult IPs from time-to-time. Being able to handle them with consistent civility and evenhandedness is itself an indicator of competence.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Propose block - HiLo48 is demonstrating serious WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour on the talk page (in the diffs posted above, and almost every other edit Hilo48 made on the talk page). If what WaltCip says is true, that this is "rather tame in comparison to his usual diatribes", and they aren't going to pay attention to anything said here, then a short block seems warranted to deter this kind of behaviour. HiLo48 needs to learn to assume good faith (including not unfairly assuming that others aren't assuming good faith) and lay off the personal attacks - HiLo48 questioned someone's talk page 6 times on that talk page alone, and it wasn't all directed to the IP editor, not that it should matter. Cjhard (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• I just read almost all HiLo48's comments dated 4 December 2019 and later and most of them are perfect—I don't know about the accuracy of the statements regarding the topic but the explanations of standard procedure and policies are exactly correct. See User talk:202.161.1.218 for how HiLo48 welcomed the IP on 3 December 2019 and offered a friendly and simple explanation about indenting. Those commenting above to the effect that an IP's indenting doesn't matter are mistaken—frequent posts without the correct indents are disruptive as they break the flow of a thread and make subsequent posts difficult. If someone is going to frequently contribute to a talk page, it is kinder to bluntly tell them about the problems they are causing. HiLo48 did better than that—he politely outlined what is needed which is more help than I noticed from others. The diffs of "uncivil" comments above are very weak and do not account for the totality of the talk page. It's true that a couple of the mentions of "incompetent" were excessive, although they were accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with Johnuniq. Indenting, at least to me, isn't that big of a deal, really. We can all read , yes, indenting makes it easier but it isn't needed. I could have typed this message without the indent and Johnuniq would still understand that I was responding to his message by reading the first four words.

Also, I would like to point out HiLo48's response to the olive branch I extended to him. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Talk about not assuming good faith... Kirbanzo  18:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The IP is the problem. It's either not competent to learn how to indent properly or choosing not to learn spitefully. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should sentence him to a period of indented servitude. EEng 14:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! Nice one. :D Bacondrum (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s someone else’s joke but I can no longer remember whose. EEng 20:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think HiLo48's comments directed towards others violate CIVIL. I've had some interaction with the editor and I do think they need to understand that comments that come off as dismissive (or worse) aren't helpful. Comments that focus on the editor vs the content are a problem. I haven't read this whole discussion so I will abstain from supporting or objecting to the proposed block. This isn't behavior that should result in an immediate block but, if the editor has been warned, and this ANI is a clear warning, this is behavior that should result in a block if it continues. Springee (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Give him a warning - No need for a block, yet...just give him a warning. I generally find this editor to be a good sort...having said that, my friendly attempts to calm the situation were met with uncollegial responses here, where I was pretty much told that I was being a pedant about his swearing at other editors and here where a very reasonable and friendly request to tone it down was met with unreasonable hostility. Having said that, I've generally gotten along well with this editor and value their contributions, so I think a warning is in order, but not a block (unless they continue this disruptive behavior). Having said all that, I think HiLo's behaviour has been disruptive, how do we tell the IP to pull his head in when HiLo is telling him to "fuck" this and "fuck" that? It makes civil discussion impossible, HiLo doesn't have to respond to the IP at all, and besides the consensus is firmly against the IP, so HiLo really should just ignore it. Bacondrum (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment While I've found HiLo's carrying on a bit much, the IP has been a real pain and I can see why HiLo was getting cranky about it. Bacondrum (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This item has drifted to the top of the ANI page with no action. I think it's probably fair to close this as "Consensus shows that HiLo was uncivil, but also the IP was annoying, so there will not be any action taken".--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sounds fair to this non-admin, who participated in that discussion. HiLo would do well to try to take a few deep breaths or a walk around the block to avoid being drawn into replying to that IP's annoying and repetitious responses, but IMO a block based only on that exchange would seem a little excessive. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani and JUSTDONTLIKEIT accusation

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

This editor has accused me of "WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behavior" when I raised the concern that saying in Turkey#History, the offensive has been described as "bordering on genocide" which is based on a comment by single U.S random politician is UNDUE. This is an unacceptable accusation and I have discussed this with him and asked him again and he said he still stands with this accusation. If the unfounded accusations continued then I predict a block. Just like calling an edit vandalism without sufficient evidence is a personal attack calling them JUSTDONTLIKEIT without sufficient evidence is a personal attack, they both assume bad faith.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment This user has already harrassed me and other users in the past and now they come here with this baseless report. I was not able to find any mention of personal attack here. Sounds like a WP:BOOMERANG case in my humble opinion. Merry Christmas to everyone.---Wikaviani 23:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I also want to add that this user keeps accusing other editors with JUSTDONTLIKEIT and in all cases there are no sufficient evidence(see also here). I really think this user should stop and learn how to assmue good faith because it is uncivil to accuse editors with these unfounded accusations. This should be the threshold to this behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You have other editors joining in to make compromises. Go back to the talk page and work it out. 2001:4898:80E8:8:EA25:1123:3AE0:C63B (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute anymore. This is an issue of the long term behavior of an editor that should be noted. This isnt the first time this editor accuses me of JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and this is not the first time he accuses an editor with this unfounded accusation. He also said that he still stands with his accusation.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Justdontlikeit is just an essay. It is not a personal attack (although continued unsubstantiated use of it is disruptive). It is also not a good argument to use by itself when debating content, particularly in this case where valid objections have been made. Editors make bad arguments all the time so that in itself is not sanctionable. I don't know whether Wikiaviani uses it too much, some of the links above lead to other editors using it (e.g Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar and Talk:Operation House of Cards). In my opinion there is nothing to be accomplished here. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Aircorn, I know it is an essay. But it assumes bad faith and ruins the discussion he has used it against me at least twice and in both cases, I had valid arguments while he keeps repeating it in every next comment. I would love if an admin considered a warning. Obviously I am not asking for sanctions. I just need this disruptive behavior to stop so we can have real arguments not "I don't bluh bluh, I only see WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT" or "This is a typical WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also, he mostly uses it in edit summaries. But look for example in Talk:Qanat, he used it twice and in two comments against two editors (Alexandermcnabb and Nabataeus, no valid reason to cite JUSTDONTLIKEIT. And he still stands with his accusation that I only just dont like it. Like everyone who he disagrees with is JUSTDONTLIKEIT!.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  Using WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT appears to be a serious problem that is happening frequently. An editor's objective arguments are being rejected by disruptive citing to this essay which assumes bad faith. There is also an editor below this thread who is also complaining about an editor who is like Wikiaviani, citing JUSTDONTLIKEIT every time an editor speaks with objective arguments. This issue was discussed multiple times in the talk page of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. This should be dealt with once and for all, so Wikiaviani or any other editor don't just go and cite an essay that assumes bad faith.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you to take a look at your own behavior. You have been blocked 4 times in less than 18 months (3 times for edit-warring and one time for lack of civility if i'm not mistaken). Saying that i "keep repeating JUSTDONTLIKEIT in every next comment" is wrong, i have been editing here for more than 2 years and have more than 8000 edits, are you able to find thousands edits of mine with that sentence ?

As to the Qanat discussion i have been awarded a barnstar for teamworking by a veteran editor (Kansas Bear) ... I can make mistakes, just like everybody else, and this report of yours is useless, as other editors said above. I'm done here. best.---Wikaviani 11:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that this editor still accuses me that "I just don't like it" even after an editor interfered and said that the U.S. politician comment is UNDUE. He has not apologized or realized his mistake ​--SharabSalam (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Not acknowledging the problem is a problem

• Background: When I argued for removing a U.S. politician comment because it is UNDUE, Wikaviani rudely replied with an accusation of having no argument and that I just dont like it, saying "There is nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors."(He also reverted me) note that I have had interacted with this editor before and he has made the same accusation against me.
• What shows that this editor has not even heard what I said and probably reverting because he is trying to harass me is that after an editor removed the U.S. politician comment because it is UNDUE he replied saying " Sounds good to me...", and I was like, wait WHAT?,... isnt this the same editor who said there is no UNDUE here and only JUSTDONTLIKE behaviors? I then asked him whether he acknowledged his mistake, he said "No. I agree with the compromise, not with what you said." The editor doesnt even know that the guy removed the U.S. politician comment which calls the Turkish intervention a genocide!. Any admin can see what happened in Talk:Turkey and see this disruptive behavior. I am asking either an acknowledgment or a warning so if this gets repeated again, this editor gets sanctioned because I am not going to waste my time with such accusations whenever I have an objective argument.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You had the higher ground. You are fast losing it. I suggest you let this go, because now it is not only going nowhere here it is disrupting legitimate discussion at the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I do feel that I have taken this issue too much but this is not the first time this editor assumes bad faith on me. Imagine that you were in my position, what would you do?. I do feel that whenever Wikaviani sees a dispute that involves me in his watchlist, he reverts me without even knowing what my arguments are and what the dispute is about. Now I will just wait for this case result and I will see if I can collect enough resources for a future case (hopefully there wouldn't be a future case).--SharabSalam (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: since you have not provided any diffs or other evidence of a policy violation, it appears that the only problem is that just you don't like what is being added to the article. 174.226.133.105 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I have provided diffs up there. I have said that the content dispute is now solved and that the UNDUE comment by the US politician is now removed(Which I have also removed here long before this dispute). The problem is that this editor accused me multiple times of having no argument. (see Talk:Qahtanite and Talk:Turkey) and that I am not going to tolerate being accused of having no argument and assuming bad faith on me again.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Links to articles and talk pages are not diffs. Linking to an essay when discussing a content dispute is not a policy violation. The burden is on you to provide evidence that a policy violation has occurred. 174.226.133.105 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, a different editor in that conversation brought up JUSTDONTLIKEIT first, and you replied to them without taking offense. When Wikaviani said JUSTDONTLIKEIT, you reacted with outrage. You continued bringing it up on that talk page, not Wikaviani. I don't see any personal attacks on you on that Talk page. The comment on Talk:Qahtanite (which doesn't read as a personal attack either) was from eight months ago, not really evidence of a pattern. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, the other editor comment was before me raising the UNDUE weight argument about the U.S. comment, the main thing I was protesting. The editor who I still have not forgotten that he accused me of JUSTDONTLIKEIT (and it is very unlikely that I forget that) accused me again of having no argument and of disruptive editing without giving any evidence or counter-argument. Also here when I said that this opinion is giving too much emphasis and that the source Times of Israel is used in a SYNTH/OR manner I got a response that also accuses me of trying to "discredit a source that" I "don't like" and that it is not my first time. I left that discussion and went upset by his hounding and his assuming of bad faith and didn't want to continue being accused. BTW in those time I was still new in Misplaced Pages and he wasn't.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, so eight months ago, Wikaviani said your removal sounds like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and you felt like that was a personal attack? And when Wikaviani today said There is nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors., you felt like it was a repeat of the first perceived attack? Schazjmd (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. WP:AOBF. These are basic stuff, didnt think I had to explain how that count as personal attack. And I said it is not these times only, I have added the other one in the Houthis article.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an allegation that you're editing in bad faith, it's saying the argument is weak. Schazjmd (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd Correction: It says that I have no argument and that my motivation was only that I just don't like it. And he keeps repeating that accusation against me. Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence, Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute.-SharabSalam (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I want also to underscore the fact that Wikavinai doesn't take my complaints about him accusing me of bad faith seriously and that he admittedly doesn't reply here because he thinks my complaint here is "useless" and "childish".--SharabSalam (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

JUSTDONTLIKEIT isn't an allegation that you're editing in bad faith, it's saying the argument is weak. --JBL (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

​Ok. I will ask since you choose to repeat a statement with no additional explanation. How is assuming that I just dont like it not assuming that I have a harmful motivation?--SharabSalam (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) From time to time, I make an edit that I think improve an article, but other editors don't agree. In some cases, when challenged, I have to admit that my preference for one thing over another is just a personal taste -- I can't explain it in terms of following the sources or Misplaced Pages policies. Other times, the edits I've made are to ensure an article correctly reflects reliable sources, or has a neutral point of view, or avoids original research, or .... All of the edits I'm describing are made in good faith; some of them could be described as JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and some could not. --JBL (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, so you are saying that whenever someone challenges with an abjective argument you would reply with "There is no here, just WP:JUSTDONTLIKE behaviors"?. This isn't just assuming bad faith it is also an accusation of POV pushing and it has been repeated multiple times against me by this editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No one is obligated to agree with you, nor to find your arguments convincing, nor to restrain themselves from telling you that they do not find your arguments convincing. None of this has anything to do with "assuming bad faith" or anything else, as you have now been told by three or four other people. Your insistence on this point casts you in a poor light. --JBL (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• In any case, the very next time this editor disruptively accuses me of bad faith, I will definitely transfer the issue to the Arbcom.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You have far more of a chance to get action here than Arbcom. They will decline. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I see nothing in this report that is sanction-worthy or even warning-worthy. all that you have been able to provide : few links where Wikaviani says JUSTDONTLIKEIT to you (last time was months ago, thus, WP:AOBF is irrelevant here). also, other editors said it above, JUSTDONTLIKEIT and assuming bad faith are two different things. i suggest you stop making fun of yourself and move forward.162.218.91.106 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing AfD template from article

Progress4weegies (talk · contribs) has now three times removed the AfD template from Langshot, despite being warned twice not to do so again. PamD 08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly believe they have also appended the name to local business addresses on Google Maps to present as evidence of notability after the AfD process began, please see the discussion for details, apologies if not relevant to highlight here. Crowsus (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

They are still at it - removing the AfD template here again, and has now resorted to blanking the AfD page. I've issued another warning, if they persist in disruptive editing, maybe a short block is in order? Isaidnoway (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 1 week, which should put it past the close of the AFD in question. If they agree to stop their disruption, they can be unblocked early by myself or any other admin in case I am not available. --Jayron32 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note this editor has done this on multiple articles, and in addition to what Crowsus noted above he makes this comment on his own talk page (unsigned) in discussion: "Can I just say, I am employed by those businesses in Langshot to develop their Business district BID." So apparently all of this is a promotional/COI effort with no declaration. JamesG5 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RTG and RDMA

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

RTG asked a run-of-the-mill, albeit vague, question at RDMA about a week ago. As this is a vague and ill-posed question, several mathematicians, including myself along with @Joel B. Lewis, Double sharp, CiaPan, and Wikimedes: gave several answers for different formulations of the question. But it soon became clear that RTG would never be satisfied by any answer they could get at RDMA, and after Double sharp agreed with me that all reasonable answers were already given, and RTG still displayed a misunderstanding of everyone's answers, I closed the discussion, which RTG promptly proceeded to edit war over; after JBL endorsed my closure by restoring it, RTG proceeded to open Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Battleground, where two uninvolved editors (@Deacon Vorbis and Jayron32:) agreed that continuing the discussion would not be productive, thus rendering the close proper. Throughout that discussion, RTG was consistently incivil, with e.g. SHOUT'ing and casting aspersions of "tag teaming" as well as (also without evidence) "harassment" and "wikilawyering", and (see WT:Reference desk#Battleground) battleground behavior – all the while ignoring the fact that a rather strong consensus has formed that the RDMA discussion had outlived its usefulness. On top of this, they made this POINTy addition to the tag team essay, which I almost want to say was made in bad faith; archive templates are often used on this page to resolve sections, after all.

This behavior is toxic. Archiving RDMA sections that have outlived their usefulness is a common practice, so I didn't think it would be so controversial here (and probably wouldn't have done it had I known what would follow). My goals are:

• RTG respects the consensus, drops the WP:STICK, and makes no further edits related (construed broadly) to that particular RDMA thread;
• RTG commits to conducting himself in a more civil and collegial matter;
• and failing either of those, RTG is blocked.

That I will be spending a good ten minutes on ANI notices here, and the amount of diffs presented here, should give a good indication that RTG has gone far beyond the threshold of WP:IDHT.--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I endorse everything Jasper Deng has written. I would be happy to comment further if requested but do not have ANI on my watchlist, so please ping. --JBL (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know why this is here. RTG has not edited RDMA to undo the close since they were told to stop doing so. They are discussing the matter and presenting their side of the case at WT:RD as is proper. While I disagree with their side of the argument, I find that they have done nothing worthy of a sanction, and certainly not worth starting an ANI thread. There has been no recent disruption to deal with; they're probably a bit overearnest, and can (and has) been reminded to tone things down a bit, but I find nothing I would block or ban them for. --Jayron32 14:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • For me, the POINTy additions to the tag-teaming page and the continued heckling at the ref desk talk pages was what brought me here. If RTG stops all such editing, i.e. makes nothing new beyond the diffs above, then yes this would need no sanction (hence the "failing").--Jasper Deng (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I hadn't noticed that. I agree that that is a problem, and RTG would be well advised to never do anything like that again. --Jayron32 15:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The discussion at WT:RD I feel is proper. What I feel is improper is this sort of WP:POINTY behaviour, which indeed looks pretty bad (claiming "However, the template is used across the site as a tool to manipulate and prevent active discussions" just on the basis of one discussion you've just been involved in never looks good). But since there is discussion ongoing at WT:RD, I have just added to that discussion another attempt to civilly explain why it is that this problem keeps cropping up when we try to answer RTG's question. So we can wait and see how it turns out from there, as I rather agree with Jayron32 that we have a problem stemming from over-earnestness, that does not warrant a block at this stage, only some advice to be paid attention to. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see why this is here except to prevent me from discussing what transpired.

• Explain why it is vague.

• I got assurance from a genuine ref desk contributor the answer was, it just means 2D. The question I asked was, "Please tell me, is the Euclidean plane the concept of two dimensional space only, or is it the concept of 2D space + something else?"

• Jasper Deng "closed" a discussion? Yes after taking the piss out of me for days having me ask the same question many times over and responding every time with technical terms and reference to other disciplines of maths and on and on and on... A real bullshit teasing causing trouble on the ref desks saying stuff like, oh maybe he's trying to read Science Direct (science what?), "If you actually have a question you want answered..." , "I am telling you (again) that you have not articulated a question..." ,

• If the Euclidean plane is a 2D plane only with no need for fancy description, why didn't any of the so-called helpers point out this response as unhelpful... "The properties of Euclidean plane appeared very interesting to me some time ago, so now I tried to follow this thread - alas, could not find a sense of humor in it. And not only a sense of humor, but actually little sense at all. What a pity, it could have been an interesting talk..."

• And on and on and on...

• In the end I wrote, "Is it not the case, that Euclid simply formalised concepts like up is up, down is down, and describing anything unusual or complex relative to that, is the opposite of describing Euclidean geometry..?"

• It has been said before, it is not possible to drop a stick someone else is beating you up with. Being unable to discuss what has happened on the ref desks will not be possible from me. I have only discussed it in one place outside the relevant section, and that was the talk page of the ref desks to suggest that the archive template should never be used in an active discussion as to do so is purely disruptive. Is that opinion going to be on trial here? Well I won't be able not to state that either. As for any kind of harassment or disruption or tag team teasing people I consider ignorant for fun... I for one won't be doing any of that. ~ R.T.G 15:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

What you have at the end is still very hand-wavy, but has the general idea right that Euclidean geometry is kind of the way you expect things to be. We already explained in various ways in our answers what concepts are the key ones, particularly those of length and angle (so not quite "up is up and down is down", as there is no "up" or "down" on the plane, only "left", "right", "forwards", and "backwards"). I wrote before you wrote your last comment there that I agreed with Jasper Deng that you couldn't get a better answer at that point; if I'd been quicker, I might have given the response I just did. That's more or less the best sort-of-correct explanation that we can give: I don't think we could give any further answers that didn't just repeat the ones we gave (which this already mostly does), so I think the discussion was stopped at about the right point. Double sharp (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sharp... I am being accused of being too vague here, but look at what you just wrote. Can you not just bite the bullet, like the rest of us have to? Hand wavy? I couldn't get a better answer? Do you want me to embarrass the contributor who did answer the enquiry? I think the quote was something like... "Yes, it's a 2D plane" ... Is that too... vague for you? ... Seriously, I've got to drop the stick around here, or something. ~ R.T.G 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@RTG:: This battle will go away if you walk away from it. I understand that you didn’t start it. You asked a pretty straightforward question that amounted to “what makes the Euclidean plane Euclidean?”. Three hostile responses from @Joel B. Lewis: poisoned the environment and led to the battle. You didn’t get the answers you hoped for (or you got some answers that were over your head and a lot of hassle in addition to the answers you were hoping for), but this isn’t worth fighting to the death over.

It seems to me that it would be best to just let this fizzle out on the RefDesk talk page. Actual resolution may prove elusive, but things may die down after everyone has had their say and gotten a few last words in.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It sure does seem like this is a long term issue with this editor, who's talk page seems to be a long history of edit warring and refusing to back down, as well as a user page full of broken English. Perhaps a language barrier is the problem. 2001:4898:80E8:B:FA4C:76B8:5D80:9C5B (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No it's not, thanks. In the last ten years my talk page shows 2 blocks for "edit wars". They are both about protecting my own talk page posts. I've edit warred on the site. It's not an issue. Anything else? ~ R.T.G 10:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you willing to concede that your edits to the tag teaming page were inappropriate?--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jasper, much to your disappointment, I cannot see the point in discussing anything with you. Here, for instance, you claim there is an inappropriate problem, yet you do not explain what that problem is. ~ R.T.G 12:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

See above, where I and others refer to WP:POINTy changes to Misplaced Pages:Tag-teaming by you, which were the immediate reason for bringing this here (as opposed to just letting the RD talk page discussion go ahead).--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jasper, you've invoked WP:POINT so many times now I've gone along and read it... Among other things it says, "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"." Making edits with which they do not agree...? And you believe that I do not agree with my proposed addition to the tag team essay? That in fact, my only experience of the archive template is directly related to you, and that you can gag me because you fear... ~ R.T.G 12:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• I looked at enough of the original RDMA discussion and the timesink on talk and the history of WP:Tag team to see that there was a real problem. @RTG: Please do not encourage people to waste their time. The reference desks are a strange place where people cannot do the obvious, namely stop talking when a discussion is unproductive. That requires some consideration by the instigator who should have understood that volunteers had given a reasonable set of replies and thanked everyone for trying. Spreading muck on the talk page and tag team essay is not helpful. My advice is that this should be closed. Feel free ping me for further thoughts if there is more after the customary 24-hour venting period. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: I'd be fine with that if @RTG: makes an explicit commitment to that end, in addition to understanding why WP:POINT applies here and dropping the subject of this particular RDMA thread entirely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • You know that's not going to happen. People are not required to grovel here. What I'm saying is would someone please close this. Then there is a period of 24 hours or so when anything goes. After that, if there is an unprovoked problem, ping me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Johnuniq: You know that's not going to happen I don't think so, because RTG has a history of this kind of combative behavior (see his block log) and this needs to end; thus I oppose closing the thread until someone more patient than me explains to him why POINT, CIVIL and STICK apply here, and something along the lines of "lack of response will be interpreted as acknowledging and agreeing to what has been said" has been said here. It's not groveling for him to have to understand policies and guidelines that apply to him anyways.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
        • You should have seen this movie before—disruption occurs but not enough for a block to occur; a report is made at ANI; the disruption that led to the report stops. That is a good result as far as the community is concerned. I understand the frustration but the only diffs I noticed above related to the current issue. RTG's block log shows a 24-hour block 9 months ago and a 31-hour block 9 years before that—they are stale and do not warrant a sanction or forced-feeding of policies and guidelines. Perhaps you missed the subtle message in my comments—as an admin, I'm making an offer to investigate and take appropriate action regarding any similar issues in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• That policies and guidelines don't apply to me? A human with a pointy stick is the deadliest beast on this planet. "Lack of response is a..." Jasper... are you pinging me? ~ R.T.G 07:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Joloimpat / 173.66.144.28

I received a query at

User talk:Guy Macon#Joloimpat

about

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

and

173.66.144.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Previous ANI discussions:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#User:Joloimpat

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#

In the Editor incommunicado (for 7 years) thread it was suggested that an admin email him, an idea that I still think has merit. Elizium23 repeatedly asked "How's that email going?" with no response, and eventually the thread was archived.

Joloimpat does appear to have logged out after an edit to Philippines at the 2019 Southeast Asian Games and then started editing as an IP from then on. All the same issues still apply; no "smoking gun" extremely disruptive / blockable edits, a bunch of edits that really do need to be discussed, zero communication or collaboration for years. I can see how frustrating this must be for Elizium23.

So my question is this:

How's that email going?

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Fairly sure the answer is no where, unless Joloimpat has provided an email address via some other means which seems unlikely since as I understand it, part the problem is they haven't really communicated at all. I'm surprised no one has pointed this out before, unless it's only a recent development.

AFAICT, Joloimpat does not have an email set (or maybe has disabled the ability to send them emails). You can tell this by the absence of an "Email this user" under tools to the left when visiting User:Joloimpat. Or since Special:EmailUser/Joloimpat doesn't work. For further confirmation since for whatever reason that link doesn't work this way, but if you type in Joloimpat username in there, it says "This user has not specified a valid email address." (I'm not sure if this definitely means they didn't set an email or someone who disabled email will show the same.)

Feel free to test Special:EmailUser/Nil Einne or my username Nil Einne or user page just to confirm how things are when you can email a user. (You can even email me if you want, although I'll probably ignore it.)

Note AFAIK there is no real way to only allow admins to email you. So any autoconfirmed editor can test this completely, perhaps unless they happened to the prohibited from email that particular editor. (And I've never interacted with this editor before now AFAIK.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I was sure I saw an "email this user link" back when this first hit ANI. Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Misplaced Pages...

The IP has had two blocks, and neither caused them to break their silence. I don't see anything else that can be done here.

BTW, I also found Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Joloimpat/Archive No idea if the Joloimpat on facebook and twitter is related. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

So I do not know what prompted Joloimpat to log out and re-commence editing via IP on December 11/12, but if the EmailUser capability disappeared at the same time, this is very suspicious. I have satisifed myself to the question of whether he reads English, and I believe he can read/write it just fine. So I do not know why he chooses not to discuss, collaborate, reply, or otherwise communicate, but I am not sure how Misplaced Pages can sustain an editor who absolutely does his own thing without doing any of those. What happens next time I need to discuss one of his edits? Talk pages don't work! Elizium23 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: It's possible you did. I don't think there is any way we can know if there lack of email is a recent development short of someone actually having a saved copy of their user page or having sent an email. However I'd be reluctant to trust anyone's memory of this (even myself) given I think we all agree it's the sort of thing easy to mis-remember. (If there is something very difficult to mis-remember e.g. if someone wrote out an email in the box but then decided not to sent it, I'd trust that.)

@Elizium23: I agree if the email did suddenly disappear it's very suspicious, but in absence of good evidence for this as per my earlier comment, I don't think we can really consider it. As for the IP editing, this is also somewhat suspicious. OTOH, they've been editing with both the IP and account for so long, that in the absence of better evidence (e.g. do they always suddenly start to edit from the IP whenever they are getting a lot of attention) the possibility that they were simply logged out somehow can't IMO be ruled out. And maybe once they are logged out they don't bother to log back in unless they hit a semi-protected page or something.

Personally while not an admin, an editor who does not communicate is what I consider bad behaviour but not blockable behaviour unless there's an actual problem arising from it. If an editor is causing problems, then they should be blocked. E.g. if you ask an editor to stop doing X and there is a justifiable reason for it, and they don't stop, then they should be blocked. If you ask an editor to stop doing X and you have no idea if they are going to stop because they don't say anything, then I'd personally give them some minimal leeway if the behaviour isn't too severe. If they seem to stop, as shown by their edits, then I'd put it down as annoying but accept it.

If they continue with the behaviour, or perhaps if they modify their behaviour but are still causing problems as shown by their later edits probably because they didn't understand what they were being asked to do, then I'd likely support a block. With an ordinary editor, in such cases two way communication should hopefully allow us to change the behaviour but it's very difficult if they're maybe reading, but never responding. (If someone is willing to continue to try and deal with the editor, I'd generally suggest we should let them, simply we shouldn't expect anyone needs to.)

I appreciate it can be frustrating when we have no idea if the editor is going to change. And maybe because the behaviour isn't something which shows up on every edit, it's hard to know if it's continuing for a long while. But to some extent, even if an editor says "yes I will stop" or whatever, they can continue anyway so that always applies.

And I'd say this applies even to more content type issues. If the editor changes something and you don't agree with it, you can revert or change it. If the editor doesn't revert or change it back, then meh whatever. It's frustrating that you can specifically explain to them why their change wasn't an improvement at least with some indication they actually took on board what you told them, but if it doesn't continue, it's probably better to just accept it.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne's approach. I definitely see why this behavior is annoying but unless he's violating policies or causing disruption then I'm not sure what else there is to do. He may not view the social aspects of Misplaced Pages as important, he may have taken a monastic vow of silence, who knows? If he does do something disruptive he can be blocked for that. Michepman (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Arminden and WP:ERA violations

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

I am currently in a content dispute with User:Arminden @Alexander Jannaeus. However, upon investigating this editors contributions, the editor was secretly changing era-styles in articles per WP:ERA. Arminden has been marking these changes as either as a minor edit with not edit summaries, no edit summaries at all, or a false edit summary. Now I know this editor has been warned before, but I don't know where. The editors stealth behavior in the edit summaries show how aware they are about changing era-styles though. And this editor has been registered since 2011/2012 and should know the rules concerning WP:ERA. I don't have a full list since this is a recent discovery for me, but the editor contributes mainly to articles related to Israel, Judaism, and articles relating to the Middle East.

• 07:19, 21 December 2019
• 06:56, 21 December 2019
• 1:57, 20 December 2019
• 11:33, 19 December 2019
• 07:25, 19 December 2019

Now Arminden did correct some era-styles that were wrongly changed to BC/AD. However, I don't think the editor knew what the original era-style was to begin with. Just simply convert BC/AD to BCE/CE. Thoughts on the matter? I personally don't think warnings will do any good, especially when the editor has been on Wiki almost ten years. Jerm (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: I restored or tried to anyway but was reverted twice. Arminden left me these edit summaries basically admitting these changes with out the need for consensus here: & . Jerm (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: I appreciate the warning you sent to the editor. I just want to let you know though Arminden made some valid corrections as you stated, the editor is not entirely honest with their edits and edit summaries. Arminden's behavior is also somewhat WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there any editor willing to restore/revert Arminden's era-style changes I listed above. I already fixed Battle of Gadara, but I'm tired of reverting this editor. I've been edit warring with Arminden @Alexander Jannaeus for nearly week, and I'm so tired of the reverting. Maybe an adim could do a full protection until Jan. 2 2020. Jerm (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't examined the ERA issue and have no comment on it. I'll just say that Arminden is a tireless producer of content that is almost always of high quality, so to call him/her NOTHERE is simply ridiculous. Zero 23:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you're responding since Arminden was canvassing by pinging you and another editor. And you already commented about the content after you were pinged. Jerm (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The advice I gave to both of you was "Time to stop reverting and start forming a consensus!" and you are not less responsible than Arminden for your failure to follow this advice. Zero 00:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Irresponsible? In my second revert here, I urged the editor to start a discussion under WP:BRD and not the edit summaries. That didn't happen. Instead, I get manually reverted with this lovely edit summary telling me I have an ego issue. I sent my first warning template basically stating to the editor he needs to remain friendly. In this revert, Arminden removed spacing on the section headings which I reverted with my edit summary on the grounds of MOS:HEAD after I started a discussion at the articles talk page. Progress was being made until Arminden no longer responded after my message. Now this is where things get really good. Arminden decided to make this edit. And in this edit, he removed sourced content that I had previously added, decided to manually revert/remove the spacing on the section headings again, and added three tags. All of this in a single edit, and then leaves a bogus edit summary that doesn't specify any of these changes. Kind of like the false edit summaries Arminden is leaving behind while secretly changing era-styles. Then the editor had the audacity to message me on my talk page accusing me of WP:OWN then lie about how that edit was just improving poor grammar.

No @Zero0000:. Your friend is a liar. You can't form consensus with someone who decides to bail out of a conversation, lies in the edit summaries, lies on personal talk pages, and manually reverts so no one would notice. And do you even take the time to verify the massive content Arminden adds, meaning does the content added stay true to the source or sources? And he constantly adds massive content almost everyday. Jerm (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Admins here should take note of how amazingly combative you are. Zero 08:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Arminden: You must stop violating WP:ERA. I do not see a statement from you about that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Jerm: You must walk back from the combative attitude. I'm thinking of a few of your comments that I noticed, particularly "Your friend is a liar" above, with other mentions of lies. First, that is prohibited. Second, it is irrelevant—stick to the facts and policies. This topic is over my head but I looked at Talk:Alexander Jannaeus and noticed your response at the bottom of the page: diff. That is not helpful for a talk page because Nishidani made some simple assertions including that "Ancient history is conjectural in large part" and that having an academic source for the point in question was pointless because ultimately the only source for the claim was Antiquities of the Jews "whose assertion is contradicted by the archaeological record". Responding that academic arguments haven't been added yet completely misses the point. You might ask how Nishidani knows that, but ignoring it shows a disregard for the topic. You are correct about the era changes but you might have let that irritation cloud your judgment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: I don’t know why you’re commenting on content. You should’ve just gone to the articles talk page and stated that there. Anyway, excluding the original ANI report for era-style violations, I just wanted to let the community know what I am dealing with. Jerm (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is a beautiful parry. However it indicates a complete disregard for the accuracy of content in the encyclopedia, and being unable to engage with simple arguments is disruptive. If "what I am dealing with" means a liar, please bear in mind that an admin such as myself is required to prevent editors from repeating personal attacks. First, attacks are prohibited. Second, they are irrelevant since the issue is content, not the psychological state of another editor. The reason I commented on content is that I'm like that: ultimately it's the content that mattes. Further, being lazy, I only looked at the last section on the talk page, and it was easy to understand and to see that you failed to engage with the argument. If that were a habit, it would be a matter for ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: Since you’re still commenting on content. This will be my last response concerning content because this is ANI. I haven’t disregarded anything. As noted in the discussion at the articles talk page, I mentioned a few major issues but not all of them. You seem to know much more about it than me, so I urge you assist or expand the article. I will ping you again as soon as Nishidani responds. I’m sure Nishidani will be upset with my latest response. To be honest, by your latest reply, I get the feeling you’re mixing Nishidani and Arminden in the same situation. Though it’s the same article, Nishidani is a different discussion, so mentioning Nishidani and the content we are currently discussing still was completely off-topic. Now concerning Arminden, yes, it is a content dispute . However, I’m focused on how Arminden is behaving in the dispute. I think you should read again and check the revisions again in my response to Zero0000. Jerm (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Jerm: I typed the two different user names immediately above—of course I haven't mixed them up, and of course I read the comments above. I don't know if you have been unable to comprehend the simple point I made or whether you are deflecting the issue towards safer ground. At any rate, please be aware that failing to engage with arguments from other editors can be disruptive and is sanctionable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing from the discussion. My apologies for wasting everyones time. Have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year! Jerm (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I am very sorry I've wasted so much of everybody's time. I certainly am well-intended in my edits. Jerm had many issues with me (and I had none with him, just with the content; can't take too seriously personal or other accusations I do not view as based on fact), but Jerm chose to open the debate here on one specific issue: the era style. Yes, I did introduce BCE/CE in a topic of almost strictly Jewish relevance - a Hasmonean king who hardly has any importance to Christians. I most honestly don't have the time to deal with every aspect of WP diplomacy - mea culpa. I'm using my time as effectively as I can, WP is not a paid job, lately I've been trying to avoid topics like the Israeli-Arab conflict and didn't expect so much pushback on obscure history or archaeology topics. I also do apologise for preferring BE in slightly more "dusty" contexts like this; King James, the PEF and the Mandate period etc. seem to me to have left a British mark on this whole area, Edward Robinson & Barclay were IMHO rather the exception, but from Albright onwards the Americans have caught up massively. So that's all debatable, and I'll try my best not to aggravate anyone anymore (wonder if I'll manage, probably not). Sorry again for the waste of your time. Happy holidays everyone, Arminden (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the articles in question:

• Battle of Gadara: between Judaean Hasmoneans and the Arab Nabataeans
• Shikhin: ancient Jewish place
• Tombs of the Sanhedrin: Jewish tombs
• Pella, Jordan: mostly Roman, Byzantine
• Abila (Decapolis): Roman/Byzantine

at least the three first ones don't have anything to do with Christianity, so using BCE/CE is undoubtedly justified, IMO. The two last ones the Christian connection is a minor one, so using BCE/CE is reasonable, IMO. Alas, pr WP:ERA, consensus must be asked on the talk page, first. (Trying to shortcut that cumbersome approach will likely land you on one of the "dramah" boards). My conclusion: Arminden did the right thing, the wrong way. Huldra (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That is probably correct but WP:ERA and similar do-not-change-existing-style guidelines are essential for sanity to prevent earnest editors reverting each other forever. Arminden's response above is in tune with the Christmas spirit but says nothing about an understanding of the issue, namely that people making ex cathedra changes to style are intensely disruptive and such changes must not be repeated. Unfortunately, such matters have to be proposed on each article talk, or possibly at a wikiproject with a link to the wikiproject on each talk. However, volunteers aren't compelled to answer in a way that we like, so we assume the message has been received. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ubcule harassing ThaddeusSholto

Ubcule created Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) with an unnecessarily vague description that would include virtually any combination of Sherlock Holmes, Holmes, Watson, Doctor Watson, and/or Dr Watson. I removed that as it is far too general so he reverted it and started a discussion on my personal talk page instead of the article page. It seemed to me that the logical solution was to create Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) so there would be two. Ubcule didn't like that solution so at that point, Ubcule decided to drag this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous) by naming me and asking for others to chime in and when I pointed out that was not the correct venue he claimed he didn't want to discuss it with me even though he named me directly.

Then he cut and paste the contents of my talk page to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) and when I reverted it and asked him to start a new conversation instead of pasting my words to yet another venue, he did it again. I asked him to stop harassing me and he replied that he didn't think it was harassment and then took it to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard seeking others to agree with him. The solution there was to start a new conversation on the article talk page which I did.

So Ubcule once again cut-and-paste the entire conversation from my personal talk page even though I have asked him multiple times to stop doing that. I removed it and cited WP:TALKNO, WP:SHOUT, WP:MULTI and WP:TPYES. So he did it again.

He also posted the same message to numerous people's talk pages asking them to assist him. , , , , and . This is blatant WP:FORUMSHOP and harassment as I have asked him to refrain from posting the exact same conversation in multiple venues and he is doing it immediately afterward. I was interested in discussing his issues with the disambiguation page but I am really failing to see good faith in his actions. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that the comment I posted elsewhere on the Administrator's noticeboard was written before I became aware you'd posted this. (The evidence being it's unlikely that I'd have been able to write all that in around a minute after you posted it).

I had warned you the first time you removed my comments that I would treat any further removal as vandalism, and did so. Ubcule (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: Various points:-

• You accused me of reposting the entire discussion here. I did not. After you'd complained that you didn't like *your* comments being reposted, I reposted my own comments, minus yours . Regardless of whatever rights you have (or think you have) over your talk page, or over your comments, you do not have the right to police where I repost my own comments. This crossed the line into vandalism and was why I reported you.
• What you characterise as "attacks", "harassment" and "insults" are not necessarily so just because you call them that or because you think they are. I have disagreed with you- and there is no need to apologise for that- but legitimate criticism is not an attack, even if you want to take it that way.
• I am not an expert in dispute resolution and finding the appropriate venue is not always straightforward. Particularly when the other person has repeatedly criticised this and shown no interest in being a part of this, but has done nothing themselves to resolve the issues- quite the opposite. You repeatedly cite links to guidelines and policy, but do nothing useful to resolve the issue yourself. I have acknowledged that there may have been better venues, and was happy to hear suggestions from an unbiased observer; you are the other party in an increasingly acrimonious dispute, which is why I'm not paying attention to every guideline-citing shortcut link you spew out.

As Robert McClenon noted when he closed an attempt by myself to resolve the dispute, "This is a difficult case because User:ThaddeusSholto is making it difficult".

Perhaps you skimmed what I'd posted, didn't like that and assumed *I* was insulting you? No. His words, not mine.

Ubcule (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:ThaddeusSholto removing my comments from discussion page

(Note; the following was originally written and submitted before I realised ThaddeusSholto had near-simultaneously posted above (a minute or so prior). I don't have a problem with the discussions being combined (), but I want it to remain clear that this was posted entirely separately as a fulfilment of what I said I'd do here.) Ubcule (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC))

User:ThaddeusSholto's behaviour has crossed the line from (supposedly) policing the rights to their own talk page and where their own comments can be reposted into removing my own comments from a discussion thread at an article talk page and repeating this behaviour even after they were warned that I would consider this vandalism if it happened again.

To cut a long story short, I'm in a dispute with User:ThaddeusSholto that I initially tried to keep civil, but which has become increasingly impossible and crossed into a personal dispute.

See here, here and various other linked pages for the background.

This may not have been the ideal place to post some comments regarding the dispute between ourselves but finding a venue to resolve these issues has become exceptionally difficult because of Thaddeus' own conduct. How do you even begin to conduct a discussion with someone who feels this is acceptable?

They've repeatedly called my attempts to move their comments from their own talk page to the article talk page as "harassment". Regardless of whether or not this is acceptable, it's not harassment. I've asked them to report me if they consider it "harassment", but they haven't done so- they just keep throwing these accusations out there while failing to back them up.

Note that when ThaddeusSholto removed my comments, they characterised them as "insults", after already having accused me of "attacking" and "harassing" them.

As Robert McClenon noted when closing my attempt to resolve the dispute at the dispute discussion noticeboard, "This is a difficult case because User:ThaddeusSholto is making it difficult".

Apologies if this isn't a great summary of the case; the tl;dr issue here is that ThaddeusSholto is deleting my comments.

Ubcule (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

DRN Closer's Comments

I will comment briefly on my close at DRN. As I said, it was my opinion that User:ThaddeusSholto was making it difficult, but was not completely over the line into unacceptable conduct. I disagree with User:ThaddeusSholto's allegation that User:Ubcule was harassing them. Ubcole was attempting to transfer the discussion from a user talk page to an article talk page. At least, it looked to me like an attempt to move the discussion. Thaddeus instead erased the discussion. That might have been just barely within the bounds of talk page guidelines, but it looked to me like it was making it difficult to discuss. In any case, it certainly was not harassment.

If the two editors are willing to begin discussion on an article talk page, then this thread can be closed and they can be allowed to discuss. If they can't agree on where to have this discussion, then a topic-ban or interaction ban may be necessary. I advise them not to make that necessary, because I advise them to resume discussion on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the first I am seeing of Ubcule's comments here as they failed to notify me that they tried to report me here. I did attempt a new conversation per your instructions then Ubcule cut-and-paste a long diatribe filled with bold shouting and attacks about my intentions and editing and having nothing to do with the actual disamiguation page. On that basis I removed the attacks as they weren't germane to the article itself. If Ubcule wants to discuss why one disambiguation page is better than two without needlessly attacking me then that would be fine. It would be nice if the forum shopping would end as well because I have been having this same discussion for days now. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please point out where this edit contained "bold shouting and attacks about intentions and editing", because I can't see that anywhere? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you honestly not see the bolding or do you disagree that they are aimed at me/my intentions? As am example, right at the top after bolding "we have already had what would otherwise be considered an exhaustive discussion on this topic" he claims he is forced to post all that stuff again "due to your behaviour". That whole first section bolded "Background on discussion and disagreement" is about how Ubcule disagrees that he has been harassing me and why he was justified to engage in the behavior that he engaged in. None of which has anything to do with the content of the article. It is my understanding that article talk pages are for discussion of the content of the article not other editors. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that they were aimed at you personally or your intentions. The bolding was an understandable action to counteract your previous refusal to take any notice of what was being said to you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

To my eyes it literally remarked upon my actions and intentions (e.g. using quotes around "solution" repeatedly denoting that what I offered was ridiculous.) I didn't refuse to take notice of what was being said to me I have had this same conversation for days now. He just wants his way or nothing which is why he keeps forumshopping to get it. I see no logical reason why there shouldn't be two different disambiguation pages for two different titles and Ubcule hasn't offered any reasoning against it other than because it is the way I wanted it. That is literally the extent of his argument "Thaddeus' proposed "solution" of making redirect Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) into a dab page in its own right] appears to be organising things the way you wanted in the first place." Because it was my suggestion it is automatically not valid I guess. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is nothing personal from me - I have no idea who you are - and I can see no reason to suppose that it is anything personal from Ubcule. All I can see is that that editor has explained to you that disambiguation pages exist for the benefit of readers who may not be such diehard fans as to know exactly which version of "Holmes and Watson" or "Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson" or whatever else might be appropriate, so a combined disambiguation page makes perfect sense, but you have stubbornly refused to acknowledge that there might be something in that. Just stop interpreting everything as a personal attack and recognise that other people might have a different, good faith, point of view from yours. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with you. His tone and outright accusations of doing things in bad faith illustrate a personal side to his comments to my eyes. It shouldn't be that difficult for him to discuss the content of the disambiguation on the article talk page instead of needing to constantly reiterate what he feels about my edits or intentions. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My replies to various points raised above:

• @Robert McClenon: Thank you for your input here and my apologies if I gave the impression I was dragging you into this or pulling you onto my side. I quoted you because I felt it was useful to have someone from outside observe- without prompting- that ThaddeusSholto's conduct appeared to be making things more difficult despite their assertion that I was the one to blame. (This certainly shouldn't be taken to mean I assumed you agreed with everything I said).
• @Phil Bridger: Thank you for your input too, and yes- that's exactly my reasoning. Disambiguation pages are for people who don't know what they're looking for and should be written from that point of view, not for those who are already experts. As I noted already, our guidelines suggest combining variants of names. Even if ThaddeusSholto disagrees, their assertion that the two are completely different, not "similar"- or however it's expressed- is a matter of opinion and not the cast-iron fact they want to present it as.
• @ThaddeusSholto: The quotes around "solution" were there to indicate it was you- and not myself- that considered it such. I strongly disagreed with your assertion that this was the case, hence the quotes.
  • It should also be noted that this paraphrasing and summarising of your response (where relevant) was only necessary in the first place because- according to you- having your comments reposted elsewhere constitutes "harassment".
    • Again, no sarcasm intended- you are the one who considers that harassment, not myself.
• @ThaddeusSholto: I apologise for forgetting to notify you that you'd been reported here. When I submitted my initial report, I realised that you'd near-simultaneously- one minute prior- posted an entirely separate comment covering your half of the argument. That made it necessary to update mine (and respond to yours) for clarity, and it's clear that I got distracted there. That obviously wasn't your fault, and I accept responsibility for the error. (The two sections were later combined by a third party).
• @ThaddeusSholto: You used this comment to suggest I was violating AGF. I have already requested that you clarify your intent with dragging up those edits- and their relevance to the discussion at hand- if they weren't intended as a personal or ad hominem attack on myself. You still haven't done so.
  • You also attempted to accuse me of "edit warring" in those cases, even though a cursory examination of the situation makes clear the edits in question were a single reversion/re-addition of something that had been removed a while back. This is not Misplaced Pages's definition of an "edit war".
  • I'd like it to be noted that since I first attempted to resolve the matter by posting at the Village Pump (whether or not that was the right way to go about it), I refrained from making any immediate reverts to any of ThaddeusSholto's edits to the disputed article pages themselves- and have still not done so- in favour of waiting for the matter to be resolved. As I previously noted, odd for someone you seem keen to accuse of edit warring... and yet you seem keen to paint me as the one making personal attacks and not AGFing.
• @ThaddeusSholto: @Robert McClenon: The use of bold text(!) is generally to highlight relevant parts as I realise I can be longwinded.
• @ThaddeusSholto: You complained about my posting the "background" context on the article talk page, but the two didn't exist in isolation. Your refusal to allow the original discussion to be moved made it essentially to resolve its problems using the dispute resolution noticeboard without starting a "new" discussion on something we'd already discussed to death. I wasn't about to spend ages rewriting every single thing I'd said, nor maintain a false pretence that the discussion had arisen from nowhere.
  • Yes, some of the more interpersonal issues raised might have been better resolved elsewhere, but knowing where and how to separate them out isn't the easiest thing. (As it turns out, we're discussing them here anyway).
• @Robert McClenon:; You suggest that we might be "willing to begin discussion on an article talk page". We have already done so. Unfortunately I'm in the position where ThaddeusSholto seems to consider it acceptable to remove my comments from the discussion (which is why I first posted here). Unless I'm willing to get into a revert war- something I've intentionally refrained from- it's not obvious what I can do about that. What is your suggestion? I'm not willing to have my comments held ransom to what ThaddeusSholto considers acceptable, particularly as they consider what I'd consider innocuous behaviour as an "attack", "insult" or "harassment".
  • The reason I attempted to get third party input was because I felt it would be useful to have the (neutral) input of those not personally involved to give their unbiased opinion and help resolve the matter. Whether or not I went about this the right way, ThaddeusSholto's accusations of "forum shopping" belie the fact that I made far more effort than they ever did to resolve the dispute in good faith than they did. Repeated criticism of having posted in the wrong place, but no constructive suggestions or attempts to do so themselves. Ubcule (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ubcule (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You didn't request that I clarify my intent with "dragging up those edits". You literally said you wouldn't explain it because you felt I brought them up in bad faith. Even in this long diatribe you try to pretend that you have only tried to get other opinions when the fact is I told you that WP:3O or even WP:RFD were the proper venues you said you didn't want a third opinion. I repeat you said you didn't want a third opinion and now you are claiming that is what you wanted all along. You also pretend that you never made accusations about me acting in bad faith and right there above you said "I made far more effort than they ever did to resolve the dispute in good faith than they did." You have harassed me with accusations and avoided actually attempting to use proper channels the whole time. As we speak I started a discussion on Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) over seven hours ago and you aren't participating in it at all even though someone else has joined in. It is difficult for me to believe that you actually desire to find a resolution that doesn't boil down to you being right and me being wrong. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@ThaddeusSholto: I beg your pardon?

Let's get this straight. You were the one that had been removing my comments from that discussion- the very reason I reported you here.

Yet now you're trying to present yourself as the one taking the high road, attacking me for not participating in a discussion where you'd been actively deleting my comments and- by implication- only permitting discussion on terms that suited you?

Not only that, but you're happy to talk with one of the people you attacked me for inviting in the first place with your repeated protestations of "forum shopping"?

I'm not sure I can give any of that the response it deserves while remaining civil. Ubcule (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ubcule, User:ThaddeusSholto - Either agree here to discuss on a talk page without preconditions and without arguing about past wrongs, or the community will decide what sanctions to impose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Ironically, I saw this after I'd posted to the article talk page where I (hopefully) sideskipped all this drama in favour of resolving the issue.

The one thing that bugs me is that this will come across as a response to your threat, rather than the fact that I appreciated Certes' constructive input- which is exactly what I'd been after in the first place- and that since I was the person who invited them in the first place it would have been entirely unfair (and pointless) to involve them in this mess.

Anyway, whatever. Ubcule (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

How to Start Dialog, maybe

I said that the principals, User:Ubcule and User:ThaddeusSholto, could begin discussion on an article talk page, or it might be necessary to have sanctions instead. Ubcule wants to know how discussion is possible when Thaddeus erases attempts at discussion. That is a good question, and it is only possible if they both, starting with Thaddeus, state their desire to have reasoned discussions on an article talk page. A good place to make that statement would be here in response to this post (since we know that the deletion of material from WP:ANI is disruptive). If the parties want to discuss, they can agree here to start discussion at an article talk page (or at a user talk page). If they don't agree, and continue with the arguments as to who started it, then the community can decide who started it and how to stop it from getting worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

See above. Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I did exactly what you asked in the closing of the WP:DNR report, I started a new conversation over seven hours ago at Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) and have participated throughout the day there while editing other articles. I desire, and have the entire time and I feel that I have made it clear, to discuss the content of the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Situation under control?

Although the past couple of days' bickering over this relatively minor dispute were unfortunate, it appears the issue is now being reasonably discussed at Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). Given his overall record of Sherlockian contributions to the wiki≥ I know that ThaddeusShalto has acted in good faith throughout, and although I have not encountered Ubcule before I am prepared to assume the same of him. Unless the talkpage discussion goes badly awry, which I hope it will not, I am thinking that we might consider this thread resolved? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Puffery of the career of Eddie Rubin, drummer

One person has been edit warring to promote and puff up the reputation of deceased jazz drummer Eddie Rubin. The biography of Rubin was created by ExtraMoldyCheese, 23.241.123.228 and 204.140.185.228, representing one person. This person has repeatedly pushed up Rubin's involvement with Johnny Rivers, for instance changing the headliner name of Johnny Rivers to "Eddie Rubin & Johnny Rivers Duo" which is ridiculous. After suffering through four months of this, Ghmyrtle and an alert IP editor at Special:Contributions/2601:983:827F:3080:0:0:0:0/64 have grown weary of the antics. Is it time to block the Rubin promoter? Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

.... and not forgetting this unsourced claim.  ??!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that one was pure nonsense.

Looks like Bbb23 blocked one IP and the registered account for violating WP:MULTIPLE. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Special:Contributions/128.97.164.144 for precisely the same behavior. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that new user Burnukk has started editing the article now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably related to ExtraMoldyCheese, but it's difficult to say for sure. There's a sock farm built around that account, too, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sukhpreetkaurmylove and Flykites

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

• Sukhpreetkaurmylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Flykites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

These two seem related, both making tons of rapid-fire nonsense edits to their user pages and bad edits to articles on India topics. Sukhpreetkaurmylove's first non-userspace contrib was to the Teahouse, asking "How i can become administrator on Misplaced Pages". Three days ago, Flykites created User:Jaswindermehra13 (the user page of a seemingly abandoned account with two castecruft edits 21+ months ago), containing profane Indic script, which had to be revdel'd. Whatever all this is, it's WP:NOTHERE. —— 08:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

They might be related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Punjabier. I think they're gaming extended confirmed. I'm still sorting through the data, but I'll update the SPI case with my results. (In the mean time, feel free to revdel/delete whatever is needed...) ST47 (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

They might be related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Punjabier. I think they're gaming extended confirmed. I'm still sorting through the data, but I'll update the SPI case with my results. (In the mean time, feel free to revdel/delete whatever is needed...) ST47 (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to AlanM1 and ST47 for taking care of it. North Indian people of Mali caste are known as Saini, and their traditional occupation is gardening. But Punjabier and their socks want to hide that fact, and are continuously trying to add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Saini and Mali caste articles. BTW, the present version of Saini contains misrepresentations and a few non-HISTRS sources, but that's obviously outside the purview of this forum. Anyway, as both of the concerned users have been blocked for socking, I guess this thread can be closed now. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Block for 46.120.198.142 please

A garden variety SPA IP with "I wish Palestine didn't exist" syndrome (or Palestine (region), for that matter - they aren't picky.) Currently wading through natural history but also handy with section blanking and plain wish fullfillment . Variously warned, didn't stick; no interest in anything else. I don't think there's much to salvage here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. I didn't even bother invoking ARBPIA4's expanded scope, and just blocked for disruptive editing. El_C 17:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

User 129.127.32.138 discruptive, uncivil

There is a note saying that the host is the University of Adelaide, but there's only been one editor working on and off from this IP for quite a while now. 129.127.32.138 (talk page) has been ploughing ahead regardless of various advice given, with a few passable edits (mainly adding images), but rarely adding an edit summary except to abuse another editor, and mostly writing ungrammatical sentences followed by a bare url citation (where cited at all). I and other users have tried to deal with this in various ways, but their behaviour is wasting other editors' time and I think they need a block to help them rethink their ways for a while. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Please at least specify an article where a problem can be seen. I checked a couple of recent edits (example) and they seemed fine (I'm not commenting on their accuracy). The edits at Personnel Selection Branch appear to be correct, as agreed at User talk:129.127.32.138#December 2019 4. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Johnuiq. I might have done a few errors, but on the whole, I'm fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.32.138 (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Incivility on their own talk page and (where an edit summary exists at all), uncivil exchanges throughout (Special:Contributions/129.127.32.138). "You, for the last time, read the bloody article. There is a separate page for Hong Kong!!!" (here). "YOU read it. Its two systems. You said it. Hence, do NOT say, HK, China. You can say HK SAR." (here). No edit summaries, continuing to use bare urls, adding uncited, often incorrect and ungrammatical info (You can see a recent fairly minor example here, page forward through to latest revision.) I don't have time now to dig up all of them, but more than 50% of their edits have created issues for someone. They don't seem to understand that they need to slow down and learn a few basics - quality over quantity, and not get argumentative every time they are challenged or someone tries to improve what they have written. And as you can see, hasn't learnt how to sign their comments, after all this time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, a trivial matter, but see Talk:Maltese passport for attitude. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

And I have just wasted some more of my time reviewing a few more recent edits by this person, and found issues with most of them (see my comments on the changes, between 17:36 and 18:46.) I have no issue with the content they are trying to add, but how they are going about it, and their attitude towards repeated attempts at assistance by others (and not just me). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Return of topic banned editor

At William Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a topic banned editor has returned, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive202#Proposed topic ban for background.

In the past months there have been edits such as:

• Exhibit 1, repeatedly describing Greer's actions as inept despite him never being reprimanded or disciplined for his actions
• Exhibit 2, adding YouTube "sourced" conspiracy theory and observations on Greer's actions from the Zapruder Film (obvious primary source)
• Exhibit 3, adding more personal observations on the Zapruder Film designed to make Greer look guilty of something
• Exhibit 4, adding an unsourced claim that Greer is the subject of conspiracy theory, adding more personal observations on the Zapruder Film designed to make Greer look guilty of something, adding unsourced speculation about the event and personal observations on an FBI report designed to make Greer look suspicious
• Exhibit 5, adding unsourced criticism of Greer and unsourced speculation, and adding personal observations on an FBI report designed to make Greer look suspicious
• Exhibit 6, adding unsourced criticism of Greer and unsourced speculation, and adding personal observations on an FBI report designed to make Greer look suspicious

In addition per "those reverting the page should also be aware that their revision of relevant facts further implies conspiracy" anyone removing this crap is part of the conspiracy.

Looking at the article's talk page this material has been discussed again and again, even if the latest IP isn't the same person it's clear they aren't here to build an encyclopedia but to push strange fringe views. Could the article be semi-protected for a lengthy period please? Grewsome47 (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hm, okay. But who are you? As of now you have five edits. The Moose 10:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a week. Feel free to modify if necessary. The Moose 11:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I range-blocked the most recent IPv6 set (2606:6000:F549:CC00::/64) a month. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt actions. I have posted at Talk:William Greer#In case the banned editor returns again regarding the rather obvious problems with the latest attempts to smear William Greer. Grewsome47 (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

G0Y Veh: NOTHERE SPA focused on PROFRINGE

G0Y Veh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but is a single-purpose account trying to use us as a soapbox to promote the fringe ideas of the "G0y movement". Here (NSFW) is the official G0y website if you want a laugh and to see what they're all about.

This editor's very username is evidence of their agenda, but it is proven by their edits at the G0y article (history). (The article, incidentally, may be AfD-worthy, but that is another matter.) These three diffs show the entirety of this user's contribs, their soapboxing, and the self-evident fringe-ness of their content: I warned the user, but they still continue with their fringe promotion. Time for an indefinite block. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Mountainzoner

While I was patrolling new pages, I found several copyvios from this user. They have been creating copyvio pages of companies copied from their official websites. The pages created are:

• Comedy Dynamics ()

• Electric Now ()

• Glewed TV ()

• User:Mountainzoner/sandbox () – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 20:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Jweiss11

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

Jweiss11 has been editing the Quillette article, edited by Andy Ngo in contravention of an indefinite topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jweiss11#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Quillette&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quillette&action=history Bacondrum (talk) (User forgot to sign their post)

My discussion with the involved editors and admins at the time gave me the understanding that the sanction only applied to that one article, it's talk page, and discussion of the subject of that article. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

And I quote from your talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means." From your comments it is clear that you know good and damn well that Andy Ngo was a promenant writer and editor for Quillette from inception until September this year. Bacondrum (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That was not impression I got from comments further down in that discussion by Bishonen. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If Quillette is affiliated with Andy Ngo somehow, then it is a violation of Jweiss11's topic ban to edit that page. However, the article doesn't mention Ngo at all; his name only appears in the title of one reference and a quote from another. Personally I think this report is a stretch. However, Jweiss11: the language of your topic ban is clear that it's intended to restrict you from editing any topic associated with Andy Ngo, not just that one article. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Not a stretch at all https://quillette.com/author/andy-ngo/ long term editor and regular contributor. His connection to the paper is mentioned in the lede of the Andy Ngo article - This article and many others used in the wiki article describes Ngo as an editor of the paper...considering Jweiss11 has been contributing regularly to this article and I assume he reads the sources it's hard to believe he didn't know about the connection. Bacondrum (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• The scope of the topic ban is clear from the user talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo." If Jweiss wasn't aware that Ngo was connected to Quillette before then he does now. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Considering Jweiss11 has repeatedly expressed strong feelings about both Quillette and Ngo, and considering the prominence of Ngo as a writer and editor at Quillette I find it inconceivable that Jweiss11 was unaware of the connection. I believe this is a clear cut case of WP:BLOCKEVADE. I only discovered the tban after an uncivil comment from Jweiss11 about me being "uninformed" made me question their POV on the subject, I personally think he knew good and damn well what he was doing. Bacondrum (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

To say this is a clear-cut case of block evade is bad faith and a comes off as gaming the system. The body text of the article does not mention Ngo. Loksmythe (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

So, Jweiss11 Did you know that Andy Ngo was an editor and writer for Quillette? Bacondrum (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can answer that question per my sanction. What I can tell you that are you engaged in a edit war at the Quillette talk page. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he knew that or not, but there doesn't seem to be any way to know that from the article itself. If he was, it apparently wasn't worth mentioning in the article on Quillette.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Jweiss11 can clear this up with one word - Yes or No Jweiss11 Did you know Ngo worked for Quillette? Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• No violation This is a bad faith report by Bacondrum. Bacondrum is involved in an edit dispute with several editors (myself included) and is now trying to distort the Andy Ngo topic bad to apply to a subject that is at best tangentially related to Ngo. Bacondrum's own behavior at the article has been far less than idea. Conversely, Jweiss11's comments have been limited and had nothing to do with Ngo. The only connection between Ngo and the article subject, Quillette is Ngo used to work there. Ngo also worked for the Wall Street Journal. It would be a long stretch to say the WSJ article was an "Andy Ngo" article. As further evidence this is a bad faith report, Bacondrum didn't bring this up around 8 Dec when both editors were active on the talk page. Why bring it up now? Springee (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• And they just edited the page again https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AQuillette&type=revision&diff=932169809&oldid=932168995. Bacondrum (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• No violation first and foremost (at least in my view) the edits made by Jweiss11 appear to be good-faith edits based on research and content. If there was no topic ban of any type, this would be nothing more than an editing issue to discuss on the articles talk page. Maybe it would go to 3RR or something. Second, does the topic ban apply here? I don't think so as "Andy Ngo" only appears in sourced footnotes, not in the article content. It's evident to me that Jweiss11 was not consciously aware of any connection (based on talk comments end editor history) and the connection to the banned topic is not obvious--in fact, it seems to be quite a stretch to say they are related. Good faith edits, no violation. Move along.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• It's a clear and blatant violation of an indefinite tban: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jweiss11#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

Bacondrum (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• It certainly stated that Ngo worked for Quillette in the lede of his article last time Jweiss11 edited it https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andy_Ngo&oldid=915179199 Bacondrum (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Worked on the lede (repeatedly and at length) while it clearly stated that Ngo had worked for Quillette. This is clearly a case of WP:BLOCKEVADE El_C https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andy_Ngo&oldid=907010022 Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, maybe it was a violation of the topic ban (I can't quite tell right now), but as I was asking at AN3, why did you take it upon yourself to enforce that restriction. And why remove that specific comment? El_C 23:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum's hands are not clean here. 2001:4898:80E8:8:F2CC:23B:2501:D200 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a tban. Bacondrum (talk)

El_C - I thought we were supposed to either strikethrough or delete comments by banned users? As per WP:TPO Bacondrum (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, for such a case. If you think a topic ban has been breached, just report it. No need to edit war over removing or strikingthrough while your report is attended to. El_C 23:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry (again), I'll wait in the future. Thanks again. Bacondrum (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Jweiss11 definitely knew Ngo worked for Quillette, this is 100% a case of WP:BLOCKEVADE, Jweiss is the editor that added the fact that Ngo worked for Quillette to the lede of the Ngo article as can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andy_Ngo&direction=next&oldid=904570344 Bacondrum (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Stop spamming this page with repeat "votes" and not signing your posts. Please just stop posting for an hour or until someone asks you a question. It's getting annoying. 2001:4898:80E8:8:F2CC:23B:2501:D200 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Probably would be better if this was at WP:AE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks mate Bacondrum (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Joker157 is back to doing disruptive editing

• Joker157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Watchmen (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor has been repeatedly disruptive editing on Watchmen by rearranging the starring/main and recurring cast order despite several warnings on his or her Talk page and hidden comments on the Watchmen article saying not to be rearrange per MOS:TVCAST again. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#User:Joker157. User:Joker157's behavior is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — YoungForever 00:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW @YoungForever: You should not have made four reverts in the space of 25 minutes without attempting to discuss on the talk page first (which has hardly been touched in two weeks), even if you think you are right. In this case I was most definitely right on the content (with prior talk page consensus, reliable sourcing, and both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS on my side) and the other party had still made more reverts than I had, and yet I was forced to self-revert pending "consensus" if I didn't want to be blocked. If you think other editors are likely to agree with you, wait for them to revert. And please don't shout in edit summaries: a lot of this content is impenetrable to those of us who don't (can't, without engaging piracy) watch the show, so repeatedly shouting "Disruptive editing!" (exclamation mark yours) without making any attempt to explain why it is disruptive doesn't help us assess the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ellinewilliams231

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

Possible conflict-of-interest issues at WMAQ-TV. Has not responded to any of my posts on his/her talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

They mostly edit Filipino television articles. Unless WMAQ-TV, a Chicago television station, has suddenly hired a Manila correspondent and that's them, this is in no way a COI. And they also haven't edited that article since December 13, so they took your warning (however incorrect it was; I see it was also applied in September) to heart and stopped. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Spshu

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

Constantly reverting other people's edits to his liking. Needs to be taught a lesson. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r: The user has made over 29,000 edits. Please be more specific. Provide diff links and an explanation why these are disruptive. Ideally, cite a policy that was violated.

Have you tried to resolve the issue in other ways before? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

These reverts on WJRT-TV: He readds information that's not needed in the infobox (it's already in the article's body). Also, look at his talk page: Lots of complaints from other editors. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: Sorry but you need to be more explicit and briefly explain why an edit is bad. Also, no one is "taught a lesson" here; all that may happen is that advice is given, backed with a sanction if required. The diffs given seem to be edits at WJRT-TV, and those diffs show an edit war between two editors. Meanwhile, the talk page is blank. An explanation at talk would be useful to resolve the issue, and for onlookers who might want to quickly understand the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Not only does Spshu choose to edit war, but s/he also vandalizes random pages by adding bad spelling, grammar and formatting on them and getting away with it while not getting facts right. S/he also doesn't believe that MGM has multiple studio partners like Warner Bros., Universal Pictures, Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures, etc. to selectively collaborate and/or co-produce movies with, and instead s/he thinks that Sony and Fox Home Entertainment and then Annapurna Pictures, United Artists Releasing and Universal Home Entertainment were distributing all MGM movies since 2011, which isn't true at all. Plus, s/he thinks that United Artists was only revived as UA Digital Studios and not UA Releasing, and that MGM and Annapurna's initial theatrical distribution joint venture in the US was its own separate company called Mirror, which also isn't true. The initial joint venture (before it was expanded under the UA Releasing banner with the revival of UA) was just a test for both companies, with MGM investing in Annapurna's old distribution arm in exchange for releasing three of their own movies under the MGM banner in 2018, they only used the name "Mirror" as a banner for third-party movies, and UA Digital Studios is a separate little production unit from UA in general. S/he even refuses to merge the section for UA Releasing into the History section on that UA page. 36.71.252.44 (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the alleged problematic behavior if you want someone to address this issue. The allegations in this last paragraph appear to be entirely unrelated to the minor edit warring at WJRT-TV. _signed, Rosguill 21:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There are revisions by Spshu and edit wars between him/her, admins and Nate Speed. Most of these revisions have Spshu's edits, one of them has some movie removed. Diif 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4 Diff 5 Diff 6 Diff 7 Diff 8 Diff 9 Diff 10 Diff 11 Diff 12 Diff 13 36.71.252.44 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of those diffs are a) not by Spshu and b) quite old. I'm also not sure I see any evidence of edit warring on the linked articles. _signed, Rosguill 21:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

They have Spshu's edits at first. There's Spshu written all over them: Bad writing and fake facts. 36.71.252.44 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're accusing Spshu of sockpuppetry, the correct venue for that is to file a case at WP:SPI. Beyond that, I'm not seeing a case for this to be discussed at ANI at this time. _signed, Rosguill 21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying s/he was sockpuppeting. S/he added the bad information and messed up some of the good information at first. 154.160.14.163 (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat

Rantpoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on some sort of CRUSADE with what looks like BLP violations in some of their their edits. This edit hits the WP:NLT zone. If someone can talk them down that is fine. MarnetteD|Talk 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! e/💬 05:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done They seem pretty NOTHERE with their other edits too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• While Rantpoet's behavior was unacceptable, I actually agree with them that the article is promotional. It doesn't appear that Linda Ravenswood is notable, and I think deletion is in order. Not really sure how to proceed given the circumstances that it's already at ANI. _signed, Rosguill 05:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  I mean, I don't see why you can't AFD the article as normal. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This thread isn't about the article. It is only about the legal threat. Anyone should feel free to start a WP:AFD. MarnetteD|Talk 05:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. _signed, Rosguill 05:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

IP making bad edits

2600:1700:C970:1560:1454:DBF:83DE:BD76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've noticed from editing behavior that someone edits about once a week, always with a different IP. They do mostly reasonable cleanup on bios of writers. The link above shows today's edits which are very similar to what I believe are past edits by the same person. The problem is that when they find |yearsactive= and |notableworks=, they change them to |years_active= and |notable_works=. The former is OK, but {{infobox writer}} doesn't support |notable_works=. Apparently, they don't do a SHOW PREVIEW and see the red warning message nor notice that the notable works are missing from the infobox after their edits. I have been fixing these because I monitor Category:Pages using Infobox writer with unknown parameters. Since they change IPs every time, is there any way to get their attention? MB 05:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think the range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:C970:1560:1454:DBF::/64 covers the edits? Unfortunately, getting attention is very hard. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea. I've just noticed a pattern, but haven't kept track of different IPs. I don't know an easy way to find previous ones, but I could start recording them going forward to see the extent of the IP range. MB 16:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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:

Dommiraubi has previously been reported and blocked for this behavior here. Dommiraubi has also once again used another wiki article as a reference (), something I brought to admin attention before. -- Bait30  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 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 and . Maybe a topic ban would isolate the disruptive edits from the constructive edits? Idk, just a suggestion.  Bait30  03:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Unreported Suppression at Pete Buttigieg Page

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

Edit made by User:Battleofalma on 11:59, 21 December 2019‎ was suppressed, but no admin claimed responsibility, and no rationale was provided. The topic's a bit sensitive because the Slate article specifically referenced COI editing at Buttigieg's wiki page. Please advise more about all folks there who are able to address this. Thanks! Powerrranger (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The place to ask would be Special:EmailUser/Oversight, I believe. However this wasn't an admin action, it was a Misplaced Pages:Oversight action, presumably the edit inappropriately linked the identity of a wiki editor(s) to real people in contravention to the WP:OUTING policy. And on such privacy-sensitive matters we generally prefer not to spill too much information & to safeguard people's privacy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jo-Jo for responding to this issue. However, the article's linked to in the talk page of the article in question, so that's likely not the issue. Do you have logs of who suppressed the edit and their rationale? Would be welcome for an administrator to respond to this as this is not the first glaring problem to be identified in this article. 158.106.215.138 (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo is an admin, and so am I, however neither of us can see the oversight logs - one would need to be an oversighter to have that access. You could contact the oversight team via email here but it is very unlikely that you will get an answer to your question, as per Jo-Jo's answer above. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It was personal information and logged as such. There's nothing unusual about this, User:Powerrranger. Note that I'm an Oversighter so I can see it. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a Lot of unusual activity happening on Pete's page. Editors believe the crime rate in a mayor's city shouldn't be added to his otherwise very detailed biography, and that his flowery rhetoric about Marijuana decriminalization's more important than the policies he implemented as mayor. And it may not be unusual to redact personal information, but please clarify Doug Weller, is it unusual to not log the redaction? If everything's above board, why not simply log the redaction? 158.106.215.138 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't a redaction, it was a suppression. El_C 20:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The logic for this suppression's deeply flawed. No information could have been presented in the body of the article that's not already visible elsewhere. And nobody involved in[REDACTED] is above providing an explanation for their actions to the community. This is not kosher. The oversighter who suppressed this information still has not been identified let alone been told to explain their actions. So many edits of this page are not kosher. Really really problematic for the wellness of the community. 158.106.215.138 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I wondered about this oversight as well. So referencing the Slate article is oversightable because they speculated that one editor has a COI? Slate is a fairly well-established online publication with a high readerbase, so it would be odd to consider information from it to be this sensitive. And why wasn't ordinary logged revision delete enough? This is concerning. --Pudeo (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Direct links to the Slate article by Ashley Feinberg have also been oversighted without a log at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Next issue/In the media. So even The Signpost has been censored to not discuss a COI issue reported in high-circulation online media. What is happening in OS team? --Pudeo (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

See discussions here and here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Oversight, by its very nature, cannot be discussed in a public place such as this. If you disagree with it then please follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Oversight#Complaints. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. I would add that it seems very likely that we will get lots of such complaints in the next ten or eleven months until the next US presidential election. Please let's recognise that this is an enyclopedia, not a campaigning tool. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Oversight can and should be discussed in public. Relegating discussion about critical portions of an article regarding a man who could be the Democratic nominee to backchannels is the opposite of the[REDACTED] project's goals 158.106.215.138 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, no, that's not going to happen. We are not permitted to publicly discuss suppressed material. You can direct complaints about the use of the oversight tool to WP:ARBCOM for their review, they can speak to whoever suppressed the edits and get back to you. There's several good reasons none of these logs are public. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, yes, there are realities of this project for all folks. "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". We are permitted to have discussions about anything in a non-disparaging fashion in the public domain. Convention indicating we should act counter to the mission of the Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia project are backwards and are changing more rapidly. There are no good reasons none of these logs are public otherwise you would have listed at least one of those reasons. 158.106.215.138 (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Direct your complaints to the Foundation. Oversight logs are private and they'd have to not just change their policy but the software to make them public. Doug Weller talk 22:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Always thought keeping them non-public was the point and why there are only a few dozen oversighters. There are some things that should be private. O3000 (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsolicited Personal Attack by BullRangifer

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

I am bringing this to the attention of the greater community since the admins at WP:AE have repeatedly failed to address this. User:BullRangifer has been warned mutliple times not to personally attack me but persists despite being completely unprovoked. History at AE:

• July 20, 2018- "BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions"
• March 13, 2019- "The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated."
• April 24, 2019-"Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that[REDACTED] is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources. "

Backgound: The most recent issue started as a content dispute at Donald Trump where user:MrX has been pushing to retain misleading wording in the lead that suggests a partisan report by congressional Democrats has proven wrong-doing by Donald Trump despite the fact no trial has been conducted yet. I orginally changed the word "found" to "alledged" but upon suggestion of another editor (who I do not always agree with, but have come to respect) I now support the word "charged". The dispute is currently being discussed at Talk:Donald Trump#Alleged?. This is a discussion that BullRangifer has not partcipated in. Around the same time, I also cam across the article FBI secret society and nominated it for deletion, believing in did not meet our guidelines for inclusion. That article happened to have been created by Mr. X, who then came to my talk page to make a bad faith accusation against me . He then doubled down on his assumption of bad faith and threatened me "My accusation of bad faith is exactly what was called for. Watch yourself".

Enter BullRangifer, who I cannot recall having any direct contact with in months. BullRangifer comes to my talk page completely unsolicited to back up Mr. X and say that eithier I am acting in bad faith or have "a competency issue" This is the exact same WP:PERSONALATTACK that BullRangifer made here and was warned about by user:GoldenRing (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive248#BullRangifer) As user:MONGO pointed out on my talk page , both Mr.X and BullRangifer have engagned in policy violating behavior. But the behavior of BullRaniger is particually troubling since he was completely unprovoked and has already been warned repeatedly not to do exactly what he just did. I should not have to tolerate this WP:HARASSMENT from a user who clearly believes the rules do not apply to him.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This an AE matter and should have been submitted at AE. Saying that AE admins failed to address the issue in the past is not a reason to forgo that process. El_C 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of thoughts: First, the comment about bad faith is fully justified as I explained here. Rusf10 AfD'd an article that I started a little more than hour after I reverted his edit on Donald Trump. Second, I would suggest not relying on MONGO's interpretation of what constitutes appropriate behavior given that he was admonished for hostility by Arbcom in the American Politics topic area. I can produce numerous post-AP2 diffs of him following me to various fora attempting to inject himself into disputes that he had no prior involvement in. I can also document overt hostility, trolling, and other manner of grudge bearing.

Under the circumstances of Rusf10's revenge AfD, I think BullRangifer's observations are well within the norms of conduct, especially for user talk page. Keep in mind, Rusf10 has been previously sanctioned for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior specifically against BullRangifer. Perhaps Awilley has something to say about that. - MrX 🖋 19:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@MrX:Why are you WP:CANVASSING AWilley? Care to explain?--Rusf10 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh come on. Awilley applied the sanctions and is an obvious person to call in. O3000 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean his special sanctions which have since been deprecated?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You brought up Awilley. So, MrX suggested they may have something to say. MrX brought up Mongo. And you told Mongo on their UTP. Nothing wrong with either. But, you're getting close to BATTLE on the wrong page. O3000 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of not derailing this discussion with a side-issue, I have struck my comment. Welcome Awilley!--Rusf10 (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What O3000 said, and I notified Awilley because he's familiar with your conduct style and probably has a perspective on the merits of your complaint. On the other hand, I wouldn't blame him if he just ignored this and went about his holiday festivities.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(after 3 edit conflicts) That link just leads to a section that has been hatted and crossed out. Maybe the sanctions have been deprecated, but you need to provide a link that says so, rather than such a deceptive link. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the link is deceptive. The sanction as a whole has been deprecated. I don't know what other link to offer you since neither Awilley (or the person who deprecated it, if it wasn't him) had the courtesy to notify me on my talk page. I discovered this by myself later on.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Then tell us where you discovered that it had been deprecated. How much more deceptive could anyone possibly get than to link to a section of a user talk page that says nothing of the sort? Let's deal in facts, rather than "alternative facts". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I discovered it by clicking on the link here which goes directly to the other page I linked to. It is deprecated and that's a fact even if you don't like it. If you want to know why it was deprecated, then ask Awilley. My guess is because it was an improper sanction to begin with.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Phil..its an auto-boomerrang sanction and this says it is deprecated--MONGO (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wanted to thank MrX for so kindly mentioning my sanction from 4.5 years ago. A nonpartisan peek at the bullying and me-tooisms provided by MrX at the complainants talk provide justifications for this complaint. And while ElC may be correct this is an AE matter, its also really a NPA one, and AGF one and etc. as I see MrX has also been busy spreading holiday cheer elsewhere it seems , . Has MrX suddenly been promoted to admin, as I am a bit perplexed by his authoritative tone. A learning lesson can be had by reading further into the linked threads I just provided where User:Mandruss offered a calming and helpful suggestion that might have alleviated the acrimony had a wee bit of AGF been provided sooner by MrX. I recognize the holidays may stress some folks out....but really....these things are solvable if we just love each other! Adding that MrX did offer his form of an olive branch later.... Merry Christmas to you MrX!--MONGO (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that you are still stalking me MONGO. By the way, you might not be the most credible person to be dispensing advice about assuming good faith and alleviating acrimony. Cheers! 🍹 - MrX 🖋 22:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I stalked you to the page I linked to cause...I have that page watchlisted! In fact I was going to join the same chorus as you were on, albeit, minus the hostility and lack of AGF for I too have been a bit bewildered by their edits which have long been seen by me as well as a tad overbold. Amazingly, after this issue was brought up with them before, lo and behold I happened to watchlist their page! So whats next MrX...gonna call me a liar now?--MONGO (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Brought to the incorrect venue by the incorrect editor with unneeded side attacks. Close it before some folks talk themselves into a sanction. O3000 (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  What makes the complainant the "incorrect" one? The complainant is indicating they feel they have been unjustifiably attacked, bullied and had their competency questioned by an editor(s) that have (has) been warned previously about personalizing things.--MONGO (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  That's what I'd like to know. Where is it written that I am required to bring an unprovoked personal attack made on by talk page to AE?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Also want to request that any nonpartisan admins who stumble on this thread not sanction MrX for not only bringing up a 4.5 year old sanction and then questioning my ability to recognize appropriate behavior, nor MrX saying I am trolling him (with zero diffs to prove this) or this overt hostility he claims I have. Nor should we condemn him for his defense above of Bullrangifer who has twice before been AE warned for these exact same insults about editors competencies. As I stated at Rusf10's talk, I have his page watchlisted. I saw what I believed to be some issues, MrX did not like me challenging him on his unflattering comments and told me to...well, its all here.--MONGO (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I gave three diffs above. Here's you trolling me after sticking your nose in something that you were not involved in . Remember, when you and two other editors were following me to various articles. (One editor is now banned. The other was topic banned.) Let me know if you see a pattern here. I do. - MrX 🖋 22:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not remember that, no. I dont do cryptic or psychic well. Care to show me where I was sanctioned ever for stalking. This gets better by the minute.--MONGO (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Whew! It's good this wasn't a "solicited" attack. When was the last time someone solicited such?

Unless Awilley's one year sanction from April 13, 2019, on Rusf10 for their vexatious dramaboard filings against me has expired or has been lifted, this is a violation of the sanction. This will be the FOURTH such filing. Even if it's expired, this behavior should resurrect it, and with a vengeance.

Lest there be any confusion, the sanction on me only applies to article talk pages. My criticism of Rusf10 was very specific; it was explained; it was on their personal talk page and not an article talk page; and it was not gratuitous or uncivil.

I see this as a thin-skinned response labeling my justified criticism as a personal attack. The appropriate response is a ban hammer, multiple flying slimey-trout boomerangs, and other sanctions for holding a grudge and now trotting it out as a continuation of Rusf10's previous battleground behaviors. There are a number of behavioral violations here.

We have guests for the next couple days, so I'll have limited time to really deal with this. Merry Christmas to everyone! -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

According to this, the sanction is still in effect. - MrX 🖋 23:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of that deprecated special sanction, "it's the thought that counts" in the Holiday season. In my opinion this report is boomerang-worthy on its own 2 feet. This is the kind of documented behavior that led to Rusf10's sanction and it would have been better to dispense a TBAN at the outset. SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This actually now should be looked at over at AE.--MONGO (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Humanoid

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

Humanoid added {{dubious}} to the statement that Misplaced Pages is not censored at Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), based on the rationale that "any mention of is being censored from the whole encyclopedia". That was WP:POINTy but after reviewing other edits and comments I have blocked for BLP violations as the commentary at talk:Misplaced Pages makes it clear that he has triggered filter 1008 (the logs are suppressed so maybe an oversighter can verify?) Guy (help!) 19:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblowers were discussed recently along with that same edit filter. Is it possible it's the same person ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• endorse block The intent of "not censored" is to answer whining about sensibilities wounded by encyclopedic content. The encyclopedia can and must 1) protect itself from potential harm and 2) protect others where the potential harm outweighs any encyclopedic benefit. Pointiness and not here are very good reasons to block in order to prevent disruption.-- Deepfriedokra 22:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block It's one thing to misunderstand WP:NOTCENSORED (who has time to read all these links!?) but recent activity shows an SPA-like zeal with disruption and POINT thrown in. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

User:116.123.84.174 and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea) 2

Upon expiration of the previously imposed block (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019#User:116.123.84.174 and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea)), User:116.123.84.174 has resumed the same behavior, to wit, knowingly contravening Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). Requesting a longer block. --Bsherr (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Block needed

This IP Address, User:158.174.241.199 is not only vandalizing The College Board article, but they're also including BLP violations as well. They may also be editing as this IP User:108.45.130.7 as well, same page, same stuff, BLP violations, vandalism. I suggest a block and a revdel of pretty much all of their additions Necromonger...We keep what we kill 21:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked both for vandalism and hid the article text for the offending revisions. Whether or not they're the same person, they're certainly editing in concert. _signed, Rosguill 21:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:RaeFguynn AKA Ameer Jackson

Essentially User:RaeFguynn is Ameer Jackson, a (by doing a quick WP:BEFORE search) non-notable professional basketball player who is currently spamming editor's talk pages who have written about basketball asking us to write an article on him to put his name out there. He's even admitted to using a different username in order to deceive admins. I left a message and a general warning telling him to stop spamming editors but to no avail. Requesting a block because he's clearly only here to use Misplaced Pages to promote himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 24 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 (in one case based on a source that clearly got the information in question from the Misplaced Pages 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 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.) 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. 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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards