Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nkofa (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 4 January 2020 (→User:Flyer22 Reborn: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Editor adding dubiously-sourced material despite repeated requests to stop

    This editor showed up last month and reinserted highly dubious content[1] (in one case based on a source that clearly got the information in question from the Wikipedia article) that had been removed from the article Mottainai almost two years earlier by a consensus on the talk page. He then edit-warred over it[2] 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.)[3] 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.[4] 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)[reply]

    Okay, without speculating on why this didn't work, I'm just going to say I withdraw it and am taking some time off from editing Wikipedia. I wish you all a merry Christmas, and possibly a happy New Year if my break lasts that long. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unwithdrawing the above. Of the relatively large number of uninvolved editors, only two have expressed substantial disagreement with me, and of those two one has only 300 edits to his name and the other is apparently nursing a grudge against me for some issue his repeatedly refused to elaborate on. (The latter also has a history of disruptively ignoring the substance of ANI reports with bogus "content dispute" dismissals, at least in specialized/scholarly topic areas like this one.) I only retracted the above in the hopes that the reprisals would stop and the thread would be closed, and after well over two days this has not happened -- and at this point it would be unfair if the opinions of Ryk, Reyk, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, SN54129 and Bonadea were dismissed just because at one point early on I was tired of being harassed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment From the talk page, I can definitely see major problems with Hijiri88's tendentious editing. He's quite dismissive of the side that has the facts on their side. Hard to say what is best to do, but there's no cause to sanction Martinthewriter here. Krow750 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable minds may differ. In this case, "has the facts on their side" is clearly in dispute. - Ryk72 talk 20:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Martinthewriter hasn't misrepresented sources. Firstly, the book Hijiri88 just added from 2018 is a different source from the 2014 article Martinthewriter used. Secondly, the 2018 book never says that mottainai isn’t Buddhist nor does it say that its meaning concerning regret of waste hasn't been connected to Buddhism. What Martinthewriter added earlier was 100% in accordance with the sources. Hijiri88 is taking a different source, interpreting it in a wildly imaginative way, and using his own creativity to somehow accuse Martinthewriter of misrepresentation. This is exactly the reason why Hijiri88 has been repeatedly accused of editing from his personal opinion. That's exactly what he just did! It's Hijiri88 who is clearly pushing a POV by repeatedly denying the Buddhist roots of mottainai, despite overwhelming material arguing the opposite, and falsely claiming that the 2014 article did not contain quotes that it actually did.[5] Hijiri88 even cites himself as Hijiri 2019[6] as if his opinion is better than the historians. If Hijiri88 isn't going to be sanctioned, this thread really can be closed. Martinthewriter is doing a great job and I can guarantee you he isn't going to be sanctioned here. Krow750 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Krow750: Martinthewriter hasn't misrepresented sources. That's an incredibly creative interpretation of the evidence, and one virtually no one who has looked at said evidence seems to agree with. Did you read through the analysis of the Genpei issue and determine that Taylor 2015 wasn't a circular source? Did you read Siniawer 2014 and determine based on careful analysis that Siniawer agreed with the view she was attributing to Yamaori, thereby justifying Martin's citing Siniawer 2014 to support presenting Yamaori's views as fact? Have you located evidence that Shuto and Eriguna 2013 is not an article about kindergarten teaching, written by a child psychologist and a kindergarten teacher, and entirely inappropriate as a source for Japanese religious history? At this point in this ANI thread, you really should either (a) change your stance due to the evidence you hadn't read earlier and the overwhelming consensus against your view or (b) just cut your losses and leave. Doubling down makes you look WP:NOTHERE, and could potentially subject you to other editors monitoring your behaviour to make sure other instances of such disruption don't occur in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN, reluctantly. I do not often support sanctions, but unfortunately, Martinthewriter shows no signs of understanding that scholars & publications are not necessarily reliable outside their fields of expertise, or even engaging with discussions about such. Additionally, their use of sources displays a pattern of cherrypicking "deep cuts" from within sources, ignoring the context of the cherrypicked material and ignoring the main aspects of the source.
      e.g. a) Siniawer 2014 & 2018, excellent works by an historian; reliable and as yet underused; overall narrative is of a deliberate rebranding of Mottainai during the early 21st century - selects to include a quote from Yamaori Tetsuo to support "Mottainai is a Buddhist term"; neglects to include that Siniawer places this as part of that deliberate rebranding, describing it as "problematic". b) Shuto & Eriguna 2013, a departmental bulletin by an educational psychologist & a kindergarten teacher; not necessarily reliable; overall paper is about how children understand the concept of wastefulness - selects a piece of the "Background" section (not reliable) to support "Mottainai has been referred to as "a part of the Japanese religious and cultural heritage."; neglects to include by whom, neglects to include that Shuto & Eriguna reference their text to "Hirose, Y. (2008). Social Psychology on environmentally conscious behavior. Kyoto: Kitaohjishobou. (Japanese)", which should be used in preference if suitable. After investigation by Hijiri88, Hirose appears to also be a psychologist (environmental & social), not a linguist, historian or scholar of religion.
      Each of these, and other sources, has had to be argued over extensively on the article Talk page; now in excess of 45,000 words.
      The camel's back straw, for mine, is this comment, which shows that Martin will continue to filibuster the Talk page until the article reflects their desired version. - Ryk72 talk 02:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Ryk and I strongly disagree with each other regarding the viability of the proposed edit on which the above diff was a !vote, and Ryk was involved in this thread for five days before deciding to support my original proposal; I add this clarification because there have been a number of accusations of cronyism and canvassing throughout this dispute (here, here and here, for example). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – per the OP's opening statement this revolves around a content dispute (quoting from the opening sentence of that opening statement "... reinserted highly dubious content ..." – my emphasis), and after withdrawing and re-activating the request this still appears to be the case ("... Martin will support ... content edits ...", original emphasis, see 01:05, 31 December 2019 comment above, written after reactivating the request). E.g. this diff is given as a support for presumed misconduct, while that seems to all extents and purposes an entirely appropriate contribution on content (whether one agrees with that content or not), including a constructive discussion of appropriate methods to settle content disputes, at the talk page of the Mottainai article. See the #Comment subsection below for my thoughts on attempts to use ANI for settling content disputes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

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

    The admin Floquenbeam recommended a request for comment to solve the issue[7], so I created a request for comment based on the only two versions of the article that were available at the time. Most respondents preferred to keep the info on Buddhist etymology, but Hijiri88 skewed the request for comment by threatening anyone who disagreed with the highly dubious edits he was making. Instead of productive dialogue, he keeps telling me "I will be requesting that you be blocked" and "the only people who could not see this after it is pointed out to them would be paid editors with a vested interest in spreading misinformation." He told Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) "I will be requesting that your previous one-year block be reinstated, this time indefinitely" and "So, you're doubling down on your revenge-trolling?". When IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs) made useful commentary, he said, "Stop trolling" and "I will ask you to take this last chance to demonstrate your good faith by retracting your !vote". He unjustifiably told Margin1522 (talk · contribs) "if you don't edit Wikipedia anymore, why are you even here? Why not go violate copyright on some other website?"

    Also, Hijiri88 was warned about edit warring[8], but is still reverting now with offensive edit summaries.[9][10]

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

    • Hijiri88's collaboration on Wikipedia has been troubled to say the least, so to come here demanding a straight block of another editor is going to require some investigation. At the moment what I am seeing is a straight content dispute and the venue for that is WP:DRN. Or we can handle this here and now with an iBan for both editors and a T-ban for them both to the disputed article. Whatever, I'm not going to issue any blocks or untangle this mess to establish who is right and who is wrong - let DRN do that first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: An IBAN wouldn't resolve the issue, though. Multiple other editors (not pinging for fear of canvassing accusations, but their names are Imaginatorium, Curly Turkey, Nishidani, SMcCandlish, Ryk72 and HAL333) have already voiced support for my position (the article should summarize the relevant scholarship and not include misrepresentation or citation of unreliable sources) -- does MTW need to be banned from interacting with them as well?
    A one-way IBAN might prevent MTW from trolling me on this or other articles further, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that he intends to follow me to other articles, so a page-ban would be better.
    And what good would DRN do that the RFC hasn't already? If I voluntarily change my position to accommodate MTW (as I already did), he will just change his position to whatever the opposite one of my current one is. All DRN typically does is allow both parties to a dispute to express their opinions, maybe get one new constructive outside opinion, with no solid dispute resolution method if those opinions are intractable, and MTW has already demonstrated that he is more interested in disagreeing with me than in pushing any particular content point (I have made concession after concession on issues like the length of the etymology section, the discussion of Buddhism, and the citation of Siniawer, but he has consistently shifted his position so the argument can continue).
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Martinthewriter isn't the one with a long history of unsociable behaviour. I wasn't talking about a one-way ban, I was talking about keeping you both away from each other and both of you away from the article. Traditionally iBans and T-bans need some community input but If I were you Hijiri88, I wouldn't belabour the issue too hard otherwise there might be a sting in the tail which an admin can handle unilaterally. Take it to DRN first and see what they say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured someone might bring up my "long history", so for what it's worth I have filed a grand total of two ANI reports in the last year.[11][12] I am not sure exactly what history of mine you are referring to, but my only negative interaction directly with you in the past, as far as I remember, was in the 2013 Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) issue,[13] when, if I recall, my "unsociable behaviour" was mostly me expressing frustration that you were being an irresponsible admin and refusing to look at the evidence of disruptive behaviour that was presented to you.
    In this case I have been busting my ass for the better part of two months trying to accommodate this editor while also maintaining the integrity of our article and its sourcing standards, but this approach has not been working. If you are not actually going to click on the diffs provided, I would ask why you are even commenting here.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more I could explain in detail (e.g. Hijiri88's forum shopping, etc, etc), but I think I've made my point. I'd suggest Hijiri88 not to bludgeon this extended comment of mine on this noticeboard, but instead, for instance, demonstrate they can provide a good summary of Siniawer's views on the mottainai topic, which could be used in Wikipedia's mainspace. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC) – Stricken my "support", in favour of my proposal in the #Comment section below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, despite my posting a statement of wikibreak on my talk page and my withdrawing this ANI report, others have apparently continued to seize on the chance to badmouth me on ANI. I do still intend to stay away from the site for a few days, and I don't intend to pursue further sanctions given the mess this has become, but I will defend myself against Francis's lies and half-truths if he is going to refuse to retract them. Needless to say, virtually everything in the above comment is either (a) completely untrue or (b) a gross distortion of the truth. Two of the worst examples are addressed here
    I didn't "bludgeon" anyone, and responded politely as far as patience would let me to editors who both agreed and disagreed with me -- I will leave it to SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) to dismiss the about untruth that he had become less supportive of my preferred version of the article;
    and here
    Francis Schonken is not now, nor has he ever been, interested in improving the article, and his taking credit for my proposal to give a fair summary of Siniawer 2014 -- posted almost immediately after I finally gained access to the source -- is disgusting and offensive; I have put hours and hours of painstaking research into building the article, while Francis has made one minor edit to the article almost two years ago[16] and has used that as an excuse to post no less than 18 times on the talk page, mostly making snide remarks about me that have nothing to do with the substance of the article.
    Do I need to go through the rest point by point?
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The proposed paragraph is largely insufficient as a summary of Siniawer's writing on the mottainai topic, as I said & explained at Talk:Mottainai#Consensus?
    2. I'd suggest Hijiri88 stop interpreting and implementing what they call consensus (and usually only reflects their own ideas forced on others), at least as long as ""has the facts on their side" is clearly in dispute" (as Ryk72 put it above).
    3. For the time being I see no reason whatsoever to withdraw anything of what I wrote above, instead I'd ask Hijiri88 to go through the entire Talk:Mottainai page and WP:STRIKE whatever denigrating comments they gave there about fellow editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC) – Stricken suggestions in #2 and #3, in favour of my proposal in the #Comment section below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So ... is anyone going to reinstate Francis Schonken's recently expired year-long block for this blatant IDHT and disruptive pestering? He was essentially blocked for refusing to get the point, and then almost immediately after his block expired he tracked me down and proceeded to not get the point again, as demonstrated by the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apropos #2, I think that it's clear from Hijiri88's initial post in the "Consensus?" section (and indeed from the question mark itself), that they are asking if a consensus has formed, not declaring that one has formed. I do not see that this is problematic. - Ryk72 talk 11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88 implemented their view on the outcome of the RfC by edit-warring (diffs given above, #3 of my first contribution to this section), whether or not they stated explicitly that that was how they saw the outcome of the RfC – the language they used in the edit summaries of these diffs is explicit enough: anyone thinking otherwise is, in their view, a troll or some such otherwise negligible contributor. That's far below what is expected from a contributor by behavioural policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a gap of some days between the start of the "Consensus?" section and those edits, and note that during that time at least two other editors opined that there had been a consensus reached, and that it favoured the version implemented.[17][18] - Ryk72 talk 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "I see a gap (etc)" – what are you trying to say: that it is OK to call co-editors trolls because there is some sort of gap in time? No, that is not a justification – it is just wriggling to find a reason to defend the indefensible: Hijiri88's behaviour was far below what is acceptable per Wikipedia's behavioural policies. I've given the diffs, read the edit summaries of these diffs: unacceptable, period. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It was implied that the editor had unilaterally declared a consensus and implemented their preferred version. I do not believe the evidence supports such. - Ryk72 talk 22:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Francis, your own behaviour (including what could be politely referred to as trolling due to the absence of any conceivable good-faith alternative -- worse descriptions for the same behaviour could, depending on interpretation, include "far-right nationalist POV-pushing", "deliberate battleground behaviour" and "stalking") has been far, far worse, and is especially surprising coming from someone who recently came off a year-long block that had been put in place for refusing to get the message of a previous long block that had expired only 11 days prior.
    You can either stop engaging in behaviour for which "trolling" is the most civil possible description, or you can stop trying to get people sanctioned for desperately trying to assume good faith even long after you've drained all their patience: you cannot have it both ways.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose proposal. Clearly inequitable. In so far as there is blame to be apportioned, and I am not yet convinced that sanctions of any kind are warranted, it would be grossly unfair for it to be laid entirely at the feet of this one editor. They have outlined clear reasons as to why content should or should not be included; opposing editors appear to have failed to engage with those reasons. - Ryk72 talk 20:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Re. "opposing editors appear to have failed to engage with those reasons" – the main reason for that is quite ostensibly Hijiri88 behaviour towards fellow editors (see above): if they can't write two paragraphs in a reply to an editor they disagree with without lashing out at such fellow editor for being a troll, being otherwise incompetent or whatever, it is Hijiri88 who buries reasonable discussion in a marinade of rationale (i.e. the "ad hominem" rationale) which one should not engage with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't think so. - Ryk72 talk 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Hijiri found himself alone against several editors who have a minor, negligent or zero competence in Japanese, let alone Japanese scholarship. He has proved by sedulous source scrutiny to be right in most cases on the talk page, but finds himself outvoted. It's true his style is often annoyingly bludgeoning, and I have often remonstrated with him to not waste such enormous efforts on arguing with people who have no intention of listening, esp. when their competence is just googling key words and reading around a bit without an indepth knowledge of the contexts. I do wish Hijiri would stop wasting his and my, for one. fucking time by allowing himself to be sucked into useless TLDR talk pages. But, you know with him, that any page's sourcing will be minutely checked, even to the extent of him making library searches to ascertain exactly what primary sources say, as opposed to what skimpy unprofessional secondary sources report. I can't say that of most editors who get into disputes on this topic area with him. He really however should take a break and think over why anyone would want to waste their lives arguing in defense of the obvious when it is not going to run on this or that page due to the contingencies of random curiosity by editors visiting it. It's up to him to wake up and the personal cost of dedication to minutiae on Wikipedia, when he will often be overruled by disattentiveness. He should not be punished by a rackety arbitration process not aware of what is at stake, simply because he happens to be right but is ignored by editors who dislike his argumentative attitude, and don't evaluate precisely the value of hgis input on articles. It's all very Framish, if on a minor scale. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose very strongly. Hijiri is competent, which is (or ought to be) the most important thing here, and I fail to see anything other than pretty mild expressions of very understandable frustration in what is linked and quote above. Also, what Ryk72 and Nishidani says. --bonadea contributions talk 11:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Oppose per Ryk. ——SN54129 11:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per WP:RANDY. Reyk YO! 12:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both proposals, because a block isn't how we handle such matters (the OP was a bit over the top), but this is nothing like a WP:BOOMERANG (Francis Schonken's counter-proposal is even more off-kilter). A topic-ban might be appropriate for Martinthewriter. This kind of says it all: "My edits prove that mottainai is a word of Buddhist origin". One's edits don't prove anything; sources do, and the sources on the matter are not in agreement. I arrived at that article in response to a WP:FRS RfC notice, and have no particular interest in the topic. A review of the talk-page activity demonstrates that Martinthewriter has been rather tendentious about it, and only wants to accept the view in particular sources (WP:CHERRYPICKING). As for Francis Schonken's big rant up there (and continued below), it's obviously motivated by old-history animosities, and someone just returning from a quite lengthy block is in no position to be taken seriously in criticizing others' behavior, and it's hypocritical to label Hijiri88 as combative and ad hominem in the same breath as spinning his every post as "bludgeoning", over and over again like a chant. While I agree with H88's decision to take a wikibreak, maybe F.S. needs one as well. H88 is correct that F.S. is misrepresenting what the diffs show. For example, I did not waffle at all on my support for "version C", I simply added (after "Version E" was posted) that "Version E" might be acceptable, with certain changes, while still explicitly preferring "Version C."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: I wouldn't mind Martin getting a TBAN or a PBAN. I just think it's unnecessary red tape (how many usernames taking up space at WP:RESTRICT belong to SPAs or editors who have since been indefinitely blocked or site-banned?) for an editor who is not so much pushing a particular POV as changing his positions constantly in order to be as annoying as possible to the editors he doesn't like. To give another example (separate from the "etymology" one given above): the "personal opinion" thing doesn't actually help in advancing the far-right nationalist POV most of his article edits lean toward, but he has repeated it seven times nonetheless. Most of my historic edits in the "Japanese nationalism" area have seen me on the other side, as Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture will attest, so Martin knows my personal opinion actually has nothing to do with it -- he has just been repeating the comment for sole purpose of annoying me, and while a page ban would ameliorate the problem it likely wouldn't solve it, as Martin would either follow me to a different article (I've written hundreds) or find a different editor to badger. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OP on wikibreak

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

    Fuck it. ... [19]

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

    • That's a pretty imaginative interpretation. Reyk YO! 16:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My interpretation is that Hijiri88 realized they had lost perspective and that they were thrashing about hurtfully and really need a breather. I think they sometimes get a little overwrought, but that they care deeply and that makes it worse. Perhaps they just need a vacation.-- Deepfriedokra 08:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • After their last comment above (BTW, just after I suggested they make content discussions a little less ad hominem), I'd say: definitely needs a break. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC) – Update: see #Comment section below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: "That's a pretty imaginative interpretation" – Indeed it is. While H88 can be abrasive, so can F.S., including in this very thread. In my experience, H88 is deeply committed to the encyclopedia's accuracy, and is the furthest thing from "contempt[ous] ... toward Wikipedia". Like some of the rest of us (myself included), H88 does not suffer fools or PoV-pushers lightly. Any contempt that H88 evidences is in that direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone close this now, please. The OP has struck his complaint and proven yet again that not even in this season of goodwill is he able to participate civilly and without personal attacks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Kudpung, I would appreciate it if you struck the above offensive and groundless remark about me. hI was forced to come back and address the personal attacks that were made against me. I can understand if you are not going to either refrain from commenting on ANI threads without clicking on the diffs or actually click the diffs and act accordingly, but to attack an editor like this is clearly inappropriate, whatever the calendar date. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I've unstricken my complaint, given that Kudpung has refused to comply with my request that he withdraw the above personal attack while the (worse) attacks from Francis have continued, and more than two days have passed without any sign of the thread being closed, but with other editors showing up and, almost uniformly, agreeing with my complaint (or at least disagreeing with Francis/Martin), who probably shouldn't have their commentary ignored just because two days ago I was too tired and gutless to defend myself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: You commented a lot early on in this thread, apparently motivated by your own past history with me personally more than a sober analysis of the evidence presented (which issue I will attempt to address separately at a later date per WP:ADMINACCT -- my already-drafted message, which blames you for the failure of this thread to accomplish anything, is now woefully outdated). Since you stopped commenting, a relatively large number of editors have commented, and they overwhelmingly disagree with you on the substance. Would you care to strike your de facto !vote in the above subsection pending your own careful analysis of the substance of this dispute (which hasn't been a "content dispute" outside the scope of ANI since November 15) or finish doing said analysis and modify/clarify your opinion accordingly? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88, Until you brought it up, I had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of a previous interaction with you so many years ago. Your outrage and comments are borderline personal attacks and harassment. I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. I am not going to be bullied by you into commenting further on this issue in which my comment or recommendation was to close it. Whether my admin colleagues have agreed with it or not (see Phil Bridger immediately below) is not for you to decide and I will not be striking anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm ... how can you say you had absolutely no recollection of your previous interaction with me, when you said things like Hijiri88's collaboration on Wikipedia has been troubled to say the least, Martinthewriter isn't the one with a long history of unsociable behaviour and [Hijiri88 has] proven yet again that not even in this season of goodwill is he able to participate civilly and without personal attacks. Phil's comment was obviously motivated 100% by the status quo of the thread at the time he posted it (two users had supported a boomerang proposal, no one had said anything otherwise, and I had withdrawn my complaint and posted that I was on a wikibreak); the same excuse cannot be made for your comments, since you repeatedly (in all three of your comments) honed in on some undisclosed past "disruptive behaviour" on my part. Indeed, Your outrage and comments are borderline personal attacks and harassment. I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. is the same thing again: WP:WIAPA clearly defines such [a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence as personal attacks, and they are extremely unbecoming of an admin such as yourself. Your filibustering ANI threads that happen to have been opened by me (an editor you clearly don't like, even though you have refused to disclose why this is the case) regardless of all the evidence presented and all the commentary coming from other users you apparently don't think are scum not worth listening to is downright disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second the proposal to close this. Keeping it open serves no useful purpose, and hopefully the discussion so far has shown people that, however frustrating it might be, even if an editor is in the right consensus might go the other way. That's just something we need to accept, and get on with more important things in life - in my case playing with my baby grandson. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a balance, however, between WP:TRUTH and WP:ENC, and the latter is ultimately more important. See WP:FALSECONSENSUS and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. It is not okay for a broken pseudo-consensus to result in WP distributing misinformation. It may not need a particular editor to address it, especially in a hotheaded mood, but it does need to be addressed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        FWIW, that last sentence is exactly why I came here; if Kudpung or Krow750 is willing to monitor the article and keep Martin and Francis in check (and keep this bogus abuse of sources out of the article), I would be very happy to step away. But given that, as a direct response to this ANI discussion, Francis is now threatening to distort the article further (by dismissing the premier dictionary of the Japanese language as a source for a dictionary definition), and Kudpung has essentially denied that there is an issue with these editors' content edits, I'm reluctant to do so. (Hundreds of articles written by the blocked editor Enkyo2 still cite an unreliable source more than six years after Kudpung refused to recognize the issue with that editor based on his own unexplained assumption of bad faith on my part -- more than six years later, exactly the same thing has been happening here!) I really don't understand why the community can't be bothered page-banning an editor who has engaged in nothing but disruptive behaviour on the article for a month and a half so I don't have to do this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The "fate of the article and its contents" matter, as it were, doesn't strike me as an ANI (disciplinary) issue, but more of a WP:RSN or WP:NORN one. As for the first part (the hounding thing), that would be a disciplinary matter but would need more evidence than problems at one article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hijiri88, Until you brought it up, I had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of a previous interaction with you so many years ago - or even your name. Your outrage and persistent comments about my participation in this ANI case or my previous admin work are borderline personal attacks and harassment (sanctionable issues). I am not the one with a pattern of such behaviour. Whether my experienced and respected colleagues have agreed with my suggestions with or not ( Phil Bridger, SMcCandlish ) is not for you to decide and I will not be striking anything. I am not going to be bludgeoned by you into commenting further on this issue in which my last recommendation was to close it or take it elsewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above IDHT (obvious misrepresentation of what SMcC said, for instance) is downright jaw-dropping coming from an experienced admin such as yourself. Your referring to SMcC and Phil as my experienced and respected colleagues (emphasis added) is unusual -- are you using "colleagues" to refer to your fellow Wikipedians, insinuating that I am not part of the Wikipedian community and do not deserve your respect, or are you referring to the admin corps and incorrectly believe SMcC is a sysop? Either way, it doesn't look good. Moreover, I would appreciate it if in the future you would not ping me twice with simultaneous comments that have identical opening sentences. I very nearly did not read the above, as I assumed based on the notices I received that you had inadvertently posted the same thing twice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, your claiming you didn't recognize my name (the only difference between the opening sentences, which I again missed because I didn't bother re-reading a seemingly identical sentence) is either an obvious lie, or evidence that you were just hurling mud for the hell of it (!?) with all five of your comments: you are the only commenter here who has been focused exclusively on alleged past disruptive behaviour by one of the participants (of which behaviour, again, you have thus far refused to provide evidence), and yet you claim you didn't even recognize that participant's username? Seriously? Whatever the outcome of this ANI thread (and the related RFC), I will be asking a series of questions on your talk page after the dust has settled, and I expect answers. (Technically, ADMINACCT obliges you to reply here and now given that these questions have been floating on ANI for close to a week, while you are supposed to reply promptly and civilly to queries about [your] Wikipedia-related conduct -- you have been neither prompt nor civil in my estimation -- but I would be happy to wait. Honestly, the most important question would, if your actions and/or refusal to act resulted disruption to the article space, why you allowed this to happen, and it will not be known that such happened until both this thread and the RFC are closed or archived.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet more misrepresentation of sources

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

    Trout them all. Presenting religiously mottainai as if there was something worth the trouble, is a joke. Using a Japanese word to change a banality into some mysterious and ineffable concept, is only a promotional trick. This is for Martinthewriter, Francis Schonken etc. And then, why trouting also Hijiri88 ? For such a poor defense of what was obvious from the beginning. Don't mottainai our precious time with such a bludgeoning quarrel about a non-existing concept. Striking all of this shameful article is not what can be suggested here. But this is not an argument against the suggestion itself. Pldx1 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: Sorry to bother you (merry Christmas, by the way!), but would you please block the above editor (or at least strike/collapse his comment and warn him) for violating your repeated warnings to him to stop hounding me? He hasn't edited ANI in eight months (and has hardly edited English Wikipedia in four months), so there's very little room for AGF in this case. That plus the fact that he is an anti-Japanese Korean nationalist who in this case is essentially defending editors pushing a Japanese nationalist POV just because in this case the latter are fighting with me ("don't ban them, just trout them -- and trout Hijiri too!") makes it really obvious that the above cannot be justified. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Francis Schonken's edits

    Given the massive number of problems with Francis Schonken's recent rewrite of the text in question, I think a reasonable case could be made that he also needs to be TBANned or at least page-banned. Not only has he repeatedly referred to his obviously highly problematic rewrite (including such howlers as Mottainai is the classical Japanese terminal form mottainashi. and multiple needlessly inserted grammatical errors) as either an "improved version" or "a vast improvement" or "an improvement of ... two paragraphs" (Ctrl+F in this section, but see also this edit summary) but he even briefly edit-warred over its inclusion pending talk page discussion despite a large swath of editors (well over half of those who commented in the RFC) having already explicitly supported the inclusion of the text he was removing/bowdlerizing (contrast making a change for demonstrative purposes and then immediately self-reverting for talk page discussion[20]). Add on to this his adding a pointy WP:ONESOURCE template to the section[21] despite my having already explained to him that I consulted multiple sources to verify that the information in the one explicitly cited source one source that was explicitly cited using an sfn template was accurate[22] (he even admitted that he hadn't bothered to read the message where I said I had consulted multiple sources) -- this kind of WP:CIR behaviour is something I have literally not seen since User:Rochelimit -- an Indonesian editor with poor English who eventually had to be blocked because he wouldn't stop copy-pasting from sources -- and is quite unbecoming of someone who has been here as long as Francis has, let alone someone who has been here as long as Francis has and who, like Francis, just recently came off a very long block (which had to be implemented for IDHT behaviour and edit-warring not dissimilar to what is displayed on the mottainai talk page) and should be on his best behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC) (Edited 14:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

    It should also be noted that this is not an isolated occurrence, as I've noticed similar problems with his edits going back years ago in unrelated topic areas that were also, apparently, outside his area of expertise.[23][24][25] My having been the one to notice these was apparently what prompted Francis to show up here and here (apparently his first interest in the present article), and was almost certainly why he appeared at the present RFC in the first place (no bot notified him of the RFC). (Actually my first extended interaction with him was here, where he was quite openly advocating for "That source doesn't verify that content" to be rejected as a rationale for removing cited-but-unsourced content -- an extreme position that should send up red flags for anyone who reads it -- and in fact he was openly advocating for the inclusion of such "cited-but-unsourced" content here, and seems to still be doing so.) Given that this editor is apparently hounding me, and his hounding has been disrupting the article and talk namespaces, I think it would be fair to TBAN him from Japanese topics in general (my normal area of interest, and the area where he has shown the least ability to read specialist sources even in English), but a page-ban from Mottainai and a final warning about Japanese topics in general would be worthwhile. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like this is not going to stop. Hijiri88 has thus far not stricken any ad hominems and has discovered my user talk page to retaliate ([26], [27]). Would appreciate some advice how to handle this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My first suggestion is to make more of an effort to collaborate with your fellow editors Francis. I've noticed you tend to have a "It's got to be my way" approach, and this leads to problems. (as your block log will attest to.) Work on being open to compromise and listen to other editors with an ear toward the idea that they may offer good suggestions as well. — Ched (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not helpful: I'm open to compromise, and collaborate easily. This is just blaming the victim in the situation. Please find some advice that would actually help, if possible. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How are you the victim? You could walk away from the article any time. I could too, but that would involve allowing you to destroy my hard work with your OR and poor writing. Your edits clearly show you have no real interest in improving the article and are only there to undermine me, and you have, in six weeks, made no attempt to "compromise and collaborate", but have in fact changed positions several times specifically to oppose whatever position I have been forced to take as a compromise with you and others. And in the past 24 hours I have asked you, politely, twice to strike or remove needless personal attacks directed at me: on the first occasion you blanked the message[28] and doubled down on the personal attack[29] with another snide remark[30], and on the second occasion you blanked the message with no further action.[31] What is even more serious, though, is that by repeatedly accusing me of "OR" you are showing your complete and utter lack of understanding of our WP:NOR policy, which clearly states that This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. -- it is never OR to remove rather than adding content. (Let alone the fact that the first diff in this subsection shows you engaged in actual OR, while the third diff shows you edit-warring said OR into the article meaning it was not your intention to seek opinions on the talk page.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And again --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, this is why Wikipedia sometimes struggles to hold onto solid content editors. Hijiri88 is one of the hardest working and most dedicated editors I’ve seen and one who brings vital specialized knowledge to the project. The treatment he has been shown throughout this entire ordeal is frankly appalling. I don’t want to get into the content dispute here, but something absolutely needs to be done about the sheer volume of personal attacks and bullying being directed towards this editor. No editor should be treated this way regardless of what the content dispute is about. Michepman (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    As Hijiri88 reactivated their request against Martinthewriter, and as that request is, quite obviously, an attempt to settle a content dispute via a noticeboard (WP:ANI) that is intended to address behavioural issues rather than content disputes, I'd like to draw attention to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Hounding by Hijiri 88. Disclosure: that 2015 discussion was closed by me, a closure which then was discussed at WP:AN (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding_by_Hijiri_88).

    The gist of my then-time closure being that if Hijiri88 (and the other disputant in that then-time ANI report, who has not participated in the current one) would return to ANI to get a content dispute solved, that is, without previously exhausting appropriate methods for settling content disputes, they should be dealt short, and increasing, blocks. After I explained the reasoning behind that (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Clarifications), the prevalent opinion in the AN after-discussion remained that my ANI closure had been too lenient, and more solid blocks (30 days was e.g. mentioned) should have been imposed immediately.

    If I remember correctly Hijiri88 has since received some blocks which would conform to my 2015 closure report (whether or not the rationale given for such blocks mentioned the 2015 closure report). The last of such blocks seems to have been issued less than two months ago. Since my suggestions above that e.g. Hijiri88 strike their ad hominems in the Talk:Mottainai discussion to reduce problematic aspects of the content discussion (etc) seem to be going nowhere, I've withdrawn my !votes and suggestions in that respect above, replacing them here, in this subsection, by the suggestion to block Hijiri88 for, say, a week, per the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive897#Hounding by Hijiri 88 outcome: I see, currently, no other method to make clear to Hijiri88 that WP:ANI is *not* for settling content disputes, for which there are other venues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So ... you engaged in disruptive user conduct during the ANI discussion and are now trying to rehash the already-disproved claim that this is a content dispute, and are citing another ANI thread from over four years ago by an editor who has since been site-banned partly for hounding me, but mostly because my pre-2015 assertion that he was a POV-pushing troll had proved accurate? Your having been one of the bad ANI closers whose failure to address the problem with Catflap08's blatant trolling, harassment, POV-pushing, and misrepresentation of sources ultimately led to an ArbCom case is a point against your own credibility, but otherwise how is it relevant?
    And no, since the Hijiri88/Catflap08 ArbCom case in late 2015, I have received three short blocks, for various reasons, two of which were immediately removed on appeal and the other (the earliest, from April 2016) was repealed after I promised a few days into the block (not in the form of an appeal) not to gloat about the fact that an editor who had been harassing me had been blocked -- how is any of this remotely relevant to my dispute with you and Martinthewriter on the mottainai talk page??? You, on the other hand, just recently (as in, less than a month before this dispute started) came off a year-long block that had to be implemented because of your edit-warring and IDHT behaviour, both of which you have been engaging in on the mottainai article and talk page. (Edit: Sorry, I had forgotten, until checking my own block log for an unrelated comment posted elsewhere, about my self-block, implemented by Bishonen about a year ago. Like most good Wikipedians, but not apparently Francis Schonken, I take significant blocks, and their messages, seriously enough that I can remember them all off the top of my head, but apparently the same is not true for self-requested blocks.)
    Moreover, both this ANI thread and the mottainai article/talk page were quiet for over two days -- why did you choose to come here with this complaint now?
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC) (edited 11:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC) )[reply]
    • You both need to stay away from each other and refrain from commenting on each other or on each other's talk pages NOW, as nothing good is going to come out of any sort of continued back-and-forth here or elsewhere. Blocking Hijiri88 for using ANI to bring up issues of user competency would be nothing short of petty, as there's clearly more to this than simply trying to win a content dispute. That being said, this thread needs to be definitively closed by an admin. SportingFlyer T·C 11:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever

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

    Huge amounts of time and effort have been put into trying to help this editor understand the key concepts of notability and reliable sources, by many editors. Yet they have failed to grasp even the basics of these core policies, as evidenced by the recently-created Angela (character). This article is currently at AfD and their comment at the discussion is illuminating, given the problematic sourcing and lack of notability of the subject: [32]. After two years of heavy editing, and repeated coaching by dozens of experienced editors it is reasonable to expect that CheatCodes4ever would understand these concepts; clearly they do not.

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

    In this diff, CheatCodes4ever says the previous account was Money12122 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the previous account (CheatCodes4ever also edited Money12122's talk page: [33] and there is meaningful editing overlap between them). I had avoided naming the previous account here to avoid any possibility of outing them, in an overabundance of caution. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support Regrettably, I have to agree with Mirror here. I had actually contemplated reporting CheatCodes here for competency earlier this month after running across some of their drafts. While they seem to be trying, they are just not getting it, despite many folks attempts to explain how Wikipedia works. However, the recent thread on their talk, User talk:CheatCodes4ever#I'm retiring gives me slight pause. If they are retiring, perhaps a block is unnecessary. Or, if they are willing to step away from drafts and just work on articles, they may be able to learn the ropes. Drafts are a very difficult place for folks to edit, and many people who are bad at drafts do perfectly well at editing in other places. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, CaptainEek. I too had seen their stated intention to retire, and like you I thought that could be the best outcome. Unfortunately, they decided the rescind their retirement on the same day: (note the edit summary) and continued on editing. They have been asked multiple times to stop creating Drafts, and like almost all the other advice they've received, they haven't been able to take that on board. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block. I ran across this editor after their creation of Peppa Pig (British singer and rapper), which also led to finding this ridiculous edit. Despite other editors' efforts, this appears to be a WP:CIR issue. The article Angela (character) and draft Draft:Jessie Paege are indicative of the typical non-viable content created by this editor. Despite other editors' efforts to educate this user on policies and guidelines, this seems like a time sink, and allowing them to continue to edit seems like a net negative to the project. Even if a block is not the ultimate result of this report, preventing this editor from creating content in the Article and Draft namespaces would be the minimum sanction that is appropriate here. --Kinu t/c 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No – no more new accounts. That would be evading scrutiny. Just stick to this account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block and be clear that the block applies to the person, not the account. That's always the case, but I'm concerned, given the above comments about a clean start, that this user won't understand that. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually the main reason why I'm not certain that blocking is the best idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block As someone who has spent much time trying to help this person, it is very clear to me that they are obsessed with creating new articles (in this case, for want of a better word, as 5-worded poorly sourced stubs hardly constitute articles), perhaps hat collecting and are not interested in learning in any way despite the attempts of several of the above editors. As has been mentioned, I too think this editor fails to grasp the gravity of the situation and may possibly believe creating a new account will refresh the issue so that may also need to be addressed. Robvanvee 13:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that previous concerns of this editor creating a new account to have a "fresh start" are legitimate. Could any involved admin see here please. Robvanvee 06:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the IP as an attempt to evade scrutiny (albeit a rather poor one). Per WP:CLEANSTART, the existence of this discussion precludes this user from such a clean start. --Kinu t/c 17:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - First of all, when I said have a fresh start, I didn’t mean create a new account. I meant have a fresh start with CheatCodes4ever. Also, I am not using that IP address, that is not me. But I’m retired now, so I guess you don’t care. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Also, when I created, Peppa Pig (British singer and rapper), that was not a hoax. Peppa Pig has started a singing career. Maybe I should have created a page for her as a character and mentioned her singing career and discography. I know she is not a real person. I was portraying her as that because it is less confusing (if I am referring to a musical artist). That also should explain by edit on Peppa Pig. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Block - a review of the two talk pages show no progress up the learning curve. The above comment shows a complete lack of WP:CLUE. Someone used the term "time sink" above. That fits. He's been around almost two years and still doesn't know to sign messages. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block for minimum 30 days. The editor is back editing again after only a 3-day retirement (and this is after two previous retirements). Upon end of the block, I would support the topic ban suggested by Ian. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban per Ian.thomson; this will both enable the community to establish CC4E's competencies and prevent any major disruption while doing so. Notwithstanding this. ——SN54129 17:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban per Ian.Thomson. If this was a brand new editor I would feel differently, but 2 years is enough time to get a handle of the core mechanics of Wikipedia. Per his user page he is only ten years old -- I don't necessarily have a problem with young editors but in some cases an editor lacks the maturity and skill to contribute and their work may require an unnecessarily high level of scrutiny. In this case, the quality of the work is fairly low and the rate of basic mistakes is extremely high, making him a "time sink" as someone above mentioned. There's no sign that the mentoring and support that he has received so far has helped, so I think the next reasonable step is to restrict him from editing and give him time to mature. Michepman (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse block I am unsure if incompetence per se is a reason for he/she/anyone to be blocked. I stand to be corrected though, as I don’t know for a fact if/not such policy/policies exists or not. I see Robvanvee’s concerns & completely understand his stance/rationale as he rightfully claims this user has been here for over two years & still is finding it hard to carry out very basic things (signing his comments) being the most bizarre & absurd. So I’m inclined to think three things, either this user is an outright troll, a slow learner by default in real life, or imho which I believe may be the issue here & why i’d endorse a block is that this editor may be very very young, emphasis on the “very” “very” it is sad things have to happpen this way seeing as a good number of established competent editors we have today were at some point quite incompetent/&disruptive in their early days. Two years in actuality can be seen as relatively new but unfortunately I can’t comprehend how handling basic responsibilities such as signing your own comments should be difficult for him/her. Celestina007 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I have my doubts as to whether they are as young as they say they are. While their incompetence could be attributed to age, this would suggest that an 8 year old started editing and getting involved with Wikipedia's back pages. At age 8? Even at the claimed age of 10 with all of their failings I still find it hard to believe that these edits and edit summaries are those of a 10 year old. I could be wrong and it may not really matter as competence is competence and I'm seeing very little of it. Robvanvee 19:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And he continues to submit drafts that are very poorly and minimally sourced, wasting reviewers' time. There's no sign of improvement to his editing, although he's not as rude or defensive in responses as he was previously. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I pretty much agree, I don't know that it's unlikely that an 8 year old would get interested in editing and the back pages. I was only a little older when I first started using the talk pages. Maybe in a few years they'll have developed greater competence, or maybe a mentor would be interested in taking them on. But otherwise I agree it doesn't seem like their edits are going to improve for the time being. Darthkayak (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mclarenfan17

    The mentioned user keeps changing the outlook of 2020 World Rally Championship#Entries to his own liking. This is going on for atleast one month. We've had a system for every previous season article. Most of all, we had a discussion, where nobody supported him (all participants were against this new format), but Mclarenfan17 still editwars to keep his own preferred version. I'm making this report, because I can not see the good faith in these edits. Examples of the edits (just enough not to break 3RR): [34] [35] [36] + 3 during the last 24h [37] [38] [39]. So is a consensus something to respect or not? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I don't deny that a consensus was formed. However, in the time since that consensus was formed, new details have come to light and the implementation of that consensus contradicts the sources in the article. I will try to keep this as simple as possible:
    At the time the consensus was formed, Hyundai and Toyota had announced their driver line-ups:
    • Hyundai had two full-time entries (for Tanak/Jarveoja and Neuville/Gilsoul) and a third entry shared between two crews (Sordo/del Barrio and Loeb/Elena).
    • Toyota had three full-time entries (for Ogier/Ingrassia, Evans/Martin and Rovanpera/Hulttunen).
    However, after that consensus was formed, Toyota went on to announce that they would enter two additional cars during the year, one for Jari-Matti Latvala and one for Takamoto Katsuta. This is supported in the article by this source (currently source #20 in the article). Crucially, the article makes it clear that Toyota have not decided how to structure their team:
    If [Jari-Matti] Latvala secured a five-round deal it could reignite enthusiasm for Toyota to create a 'B team'. Latvala could potentially run alongside Toyota protege Takamoto Katsuta, who will start all eight European WRC rounds and Rally Japan. Sources in Toyota confirmed a second team was under consideration for 2020. The original idea was for [Kalle] Rovanpera and Katsuta to drive for the second team so the two youngsters could learn out of the spotlight. Registering and running a second, point-scoring manufacturer team could be beneficial for Toyota's ambitions of a second makes' title in three years. Latvala said he is ready to help [team principal Tommi] Makinen and Toyota.
    "Like I said, I want to drive next year. Maybe it could make sense to join [Katsuta] in a second team and try to score some points," Latvala said.
    And this is where the issue stems from. The consensus in the article is to organise the entry table by grouping the entrants together, bringing it in line with the style of table used in previous years. This style uses two tables, one for entries that can score manufacturer points, and one for entries that cannot. By organising the 2020 entries so that they centred on the team, the article implies that the team structure has been set, which contradicts the sources. I have tried to point this out in edit summaries and on the article talk page, but the only response that I have gotten from Pelmeen10 has been the claim that I am deliberately going against the consensus because I don't like it. Furthermore, after I posted an explanation for why a different format was needed, this is what he responded with:
    You comments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't have any kind of consensus here. The unannounced car numbers just can't be shown as the most important thing, which the sorting is based on. Like we discussed, there are no sources to back all these numbers. Loeb btw is now associated with number 9.
    I have tried to point out that the table format implies something that contradicts the sources and he instead talks about "unannounced car numbers", which leads me to believe that he has not read a) any of my comments or b) the sources in the article and has instead rushed to revert my changes to the article, assuming that I did it because of previous opposition to the table format.
    Pelmeen10 opened his post with a question: is a consensus something to respect or not? I would like to answer that: yes, a consensus is something to be respected—but at the same time, a consensus does not give editors a licence to ignore, dismiss or misrepresent a reliable and verifiable source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: I have since realised that when Pelmeen10 mentions "unannounced car numbers", he is referreding a a discussion at WT:MOTOR in which he and another editor made a specific claim (that because the title of the regulations refers to "seasonal numbers", drivers must reapply for their numbers every year, and so all of the numbers in the 2020 article are unsourced), but refused to provide any sources to support this when asked for them. In the time since posting this ANI report, Pelmeen10 has repeated the claim (by referring me to that discussion) to justify enforcing the consensus. My response has been to provide multiple sources debunking his theory. If he is trying to claim that the consensus was based on that discussion at WT:MOTOR, then I would argue that there was never a consensus to begin with because it was based on original research (only the title refers to "seasonal numbers"; there is nothing in the actual regulations to support his claim) and because he refused to provide reliable and verifiable sources despite being asked multiple times, instead insisting that the burden rested with people who disagreed with him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes; yet, so far, the discussion is about content details. Please focus future comments on "urgent incidents" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Cullen328: I am aware of what ANI is for and I am not trying to use it to resolve a content dispute. I simply feel that Pelmeen10 is misrepresenting things. He claims that I am wilfully ignoring a consensus because of personal preference, but I am not. I simply felt the need to provide some contextual detail because a) I cannot assume any admin reading this is familiar with the subject, b) the reasons for my decisiom to change the format back are not immediately obvious when reading the article, and c) I feel that Pelmeen10 has a habit of not reading articles, sources and policies thoroughly and I wanted to put something here to refer back during any discussion.
    What would you suggest I do otherwise? Say "yes, I ignored the consensus"? Because I did. Not out of personal preference as Pelmeen10 claims, but out of necessity. When I changed the format of the table back, I tried to keep a format that at least resembled the consensus, but was unable to do so. I posted this message to the article talk page (dated 29 November), addressed Pelmeen10 directly (and later edited that message) that same day when he reverted it. There was little activity on the talk page (and none directly related to the issue) until 26 December when I again explained to Pelmeen10 why I felt that I had to make the change. With no opposition to the change for a month (and the expectation that the original consensus would be applied once a more-comprehensive source becomes available), I felt that WP:EDITCONSENSUS applied as a temporary solution. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mclarenfan17, you openly admit that you are ignoring consensus even though Wikipedia:Consensus is policy, and you are claiming that your own personal perception of "necessity" overrides policy. I am unpersuaded. Can you please explain yourself more clearly? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Mclarenfan17, you say the you understand that this noticeboard does not judge content disputes and yet you continue to to argue here at ANI in favor of your preferred content. Let me be clear: no uninvolved editor here at ANI cares about your content disputes. Go pursue Dispute resolution which might include a Request for comment. In brief, if the facts underlying a consensus have changed, then engage with other editors interested in the article to build a new consensus. Be persuasive. Forcefully claiming the right to impose your preferred changes is wrong, just plain wrong. Please do not go there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: I'm not sure what you want me to say here. You asked me to explain my actions, and I have tried to do just that with a sufficient level of detail that you understand my thinking here, but you just reply "ANI isn't for content disputes". I'm not claiming that I have some right to ignore a consensus. I'm saying when I was put in a position where I had to choose between a consensus and a reliable source, I chose the reliable source when satisfying both the consensus and the source proved impossible. When I posted this to the article talk page, nobody came along and made an alternative suggestion that resolved the dilemma. I had every expectation and every intention that the agreed-upon format would eventually be applied and everything I did was done in good faith. This has nothing to do with a "preferred version" of the article.
    What would you do in my position? You can observe a consensus that is largely cosmetic, but contradicts reliable sources that you did not have access to when that consensus was made; or you can overlook the consensus for the time being to make sure the article accurately reflects its sources with a view to reintroducing the consensus as soon as it is possible to do so. You cannot satisfy both at once, and it seems that my biggest mistake was that I made the wrong choice. I made it because I cannot see anything in WP:CONSENSUS that says editor are allowed to form a consensus that ignores WP:RELIABLE. If I'm missing it, please point it out to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mclarenfan17, the correct course of action here would have been to first boldly attempt to edit the article, then go to the talk page to hash it out. You should not attempt to reinstate your edits again until the discussion has been resolved. If you think that other editors on the article are ignoring your arguments, you can take it to WP:DRN or convene an WP:RFC. signed, Rosguill talk 08:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: I tried to do exactly that. This is the edit I made to the article on 29 November, and this is the explanation I posted to the talk page five minutes later. The only person who responded (and not on the talk page, my talk page or at any relevant WikiProject) was an editor with a habit of reverting things on sight and not reading articles and sources, including articles he is reverting. Case in point, this edit where he removed reliably-sourced content (Takamoto Katsuta's entry) because he didn't check. I've been bold, I've posted an explanation for why I felt the changes were necessary, shown a willingness to work with others on it and nothing has come of it until the past 24 hours (there were a few other edits in the past week, but largely unrelated to the issue and were adding unsourced content). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mclarenfan17, taking it to the talk page in November was the correct decision. If other editors don't respond to you there, the next step is to convene an RfC or start a thread here, depending on the exact nature of the issue. signed, Rosguill talk 09:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, other editors in rallying articles now mostly leave one or couple of comments (or are not even gonna comment anymore), because Mclarenfan17 can keep up the discussion endlessly (weeks, months) with the same arguements, which will never lead to anything. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Comment: the "consensus" in question was formed by an editor who has engaged in a sustained campaign of harrassment (particularly wikihounding) against me. It was very weak to begin with me and clearly designed to frustrate my editing practice rather than benefit the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that user (Tvx1) has respect among other rallying editors (including me). But it looks to me that you try to undermine his comments by getting personal (attacking and insulting). You have also attacked other editors, both in comments and edit summaries. If needed, I can bring examples. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That user's edit history shows that his only contributions to rallying articles are to join in discussions on the current season's talk page and oppose me in discussions. He has never actually contributed anything to a rallying article. It stands out because his edit history shows a handful of topics that he likes to edit articles about, and that he contributes to multiple articles and talk page discussions within those topics—but not rallying, where he only ever contributes to one talk page at a time. It's really none of your business and a matter for a separate ANI. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making some serious accusations of bad faith and generally seriously wrong editing by User:Tvx1 here even though you provided no diffs, and AFAIK there's no case where your claims were established. You've also failed to notify Tvx1 of this discussion despite your serious accusations. I'll do so for you but I suggest you either provide diffs and a brief summary to support your allegations or withdraw them lest you are blocked for personal attacks for making unsupported allegations of wrong doing. I recalled seeing your 2 names before and came across Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Harrassment by an editor, and your claims didn't seem to be accepted in part because your comment was way too long. Nevertheless, there was some frustration at your unwillingness to accept any wrong doing on your part. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I did not want to turn this discussion into a discussion about wiki-hounding. I feel that a separate ANI would be more appropriate for that; however, I have not had any issues with the editor in question and last time I tried to raise subject of wiki-hounding, I felt the editor successfully misrepresented my ANI report as bring some petty revenge for "losing" a DRN discussion (which was not helped by a DRN volunteer refusing to read anything I posted, but seeing fit to pass judgement on it anyway). As you can perhaps appreciate, in light of this I have little appetite to start another ANI about wiki-hounding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe there are procedural issues which means a closure was incorrect, you should discuss this with the closer and try to get the closing statement changed. Worst case, you could always bring it to WP:AN or similar and ask for a re-close. Likewise if you feel that consensus has changed because of new information, it may be okay to WP:BOLDly make a change in some cases. But once someone objects, you need to work on establishing that consensus has indeed changed. If someone has objected, and no one else is commenting, then you have no real evidence that consensus has changed, whatever your views of the other person's objections and so you have to return to the old consensus established via an RfC. You can try using WP:3O or some other method like posting a neutral message on a relevant wikiproject asking for more feedback. Ultimately, if you cannot get a consensus via those methods, then you need to start another WP:RfC to establish this alleged new consensus and overturn the old one. You cannot simply refuse to accept a consensus, even a narrow one because you don't like it. To be clear I'm including any sincere belief on your part that the consensus view is wrong, doesn't work, is based on OR, is invalid, etc as well as your personal opinions on the motivations of other editors. Especially not a consensus 3 days old. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel I did exactly that. I made a BOLD edit based on new information. I posted an explanation on the talk page and I got no response. Pelmeen10 did revert it and I directly addressed him on the talk page, asking him to take care because his revert had deleted content from the article that had nothing to do with the consensus. He never responded. Nobody did, and things have been quiet until about 24 hours ago. Despite Pelmeen10's repeated claim that I ignored the consensus because I disliked it, everything I did was done in good faith. I felt I had to choose between a consensus and a source with information that could change the consensus. I only made the change after trying to re-format the table to be consistent with the consensus, but also accurately reflect the sources, but failed.
    If Pelmeen10 wants to continue claiming I ignored the consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then I think he needs to provide some evidence to support the claim. Otherwise, he is ignoring WP:AGF.
    I have performed a few reverts in the section of the article in the past week, but this was because unsourced content was being added to the article and had nothing to do with the consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    I've tried to implement a consensus version taking on board the concerns of both editors I can only hope it sticks of they take it from here since I don't think I can be bothered taking it further. Anyway I mainly came back to say if anyone does want an RfC, it is imperative that you agree on a wording beforehand and then focus on some brief explanation backed by our policy and guidelines for your preference. An RfC with extensive back and forths between existing participants like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally/Archive 3#Request for Comment on table format is likely doomed to failure. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the content-related help. But I started this topic because the behaviour of the mentioned user - ignoring consensus and editwarring into his own preferred version. I'm not convinced the user will stop this kind of behaviour. His previous user Prisonermonkeys was blocked several times for editwarring, I feel the only thing he is learned, is not to break 3RR (more than 3 reverts in 24h) and remove "undid revision..." from edit summaries. I mean, previous dispute was with not showing the possibility that the defending champion can choose number 1 for his car number (per the rules), I insisted TBA (no direct source for the numbers) & started a discussion here, later moved it here to get more feedback. These are the reverts Mclarenfan17 made: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] He reverted different users 21 times to a version with only #8 until left it alone. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those edits provided a source to support the change of the number.
    I would also like to point out that Pelmeen10 made a specific claim in that WT:MOTOR discussion. I repeatedly asked him to provide sources to support that claim and he refused. He instead insisted that the burden lay with people who disagreed with him to prove him wrong. The issue came up on the 2020 article talk page where he claimed that the numbers "were not directly sourced or official". My response was to provide four reliable sources, all of which debunked his original claim. Pelmeen10 replied to this by saying the issue was not being discussed, even though he brought the subject up in the first place.
    It is obvious that Pelmeen10 wants to see some kind of admin action taken against me. However, the diffs he has provided show me reverting unsourced content and he himself has a bad habit of making unsourced claims and refusing to provide any sources in support of those claims when challenged. He has also taken to engaging in original research to reach the claims that he has made in the first place. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really get the accusation you made. The content added to Wikipedia needs direct sources, not the other way around. The content shouldn't be wrong by adding more than sources actually write. I was challenging your added content, not you challenging me. While you're trying to boomerang this somehow, you are confusing something by providing 26 December talk, while the reverts I listed happened between 31 October and 21 November. So the issue did not come up just 2 days ago but was resolved on 21 November by you not reverting (examples [61] [62] [63]) the note that was suggested in the discussion. The note is now there from 21 November. The rule that defending champion can choose number one, is in the sporting regulations and you know it. I tryed adding the sporting regulations as a source on 3 November, which you reverted. "The issue" with other numbers was raised in 22 November here by two more users, Tvx1 and SSSB. I quote: Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that. - In any of the sources you provided, it was never mentioned that they can keep the same number year on year, nor was explained what the "career number" means. In the rules, they are still "seasonal numbers". Sorry for discussing content here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That is original research.

    Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that.

    The only place that "seasonal numbers" is mentioned is in the title of Section 17 of those regulations. There is nothing in the text of Section 17 that "it seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season". I have repeatedly searched for sources to support this intepretation, and have found nothing. I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources to support this interpretation, and you have refused. And I have provided no less than four reliable and verifiable sources that specifically state that crews choose permanent numbers. You responded by changing the subject. It's quite obvious that you don't have the sources to support the claim, but nevertheless insist on it being true and refuse to address anyone or anything that points out that this is incorrect. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the sources you listed mention what does that "career number" mean! It fails to mention that the numbers will carry on to the next season (2020 in this case). That's what you can call WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR. Removing the numbers for not having enough information is not OR, very funny you'd think that. It would be the correct thing not to list "expected numbers". Now you've even added the same numbers to 2021_World_Rally_Championship#Entries, crazy. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For What It's Worth

    This is a dispute that is partly a content dispute and partly a conduct dispute, as are many disputes here. This is a conduct forum. However, most conduct disputes, in particular most difficult conduct disputes, begin as content disputes. A conduct dispute that does not have a content element is usually simply vandalism or trolling, and can usually be resolved by one administrator concluding, with no objection, that the offender is not here constructively and needs blocking. Unfortunately, what we have here is a dispute involving an editor who is involved in multiple content disputes about motorsports (and possibly other matters). An editor who is involved in frequent content disputes is either an editor who edits in a contentious area, or an editor who doesn't collaborate well. This editor, User:Mclarenfan17, appears to be an editor who gets into a lot of content disputes, many of which come to WP:DRN as content disputes, and some of which come here as conduct disputes. I have generally tried to be neutral in the content disputes, and have assisted in resolving them by RFC. However, if an editor gets into too many content disputes, maybe they are an editor who doesn't compromise enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Undiscussed split

    Not an urgent or intractable behavior issue, no need for admin intervention. Any further discussion of this issue can continue on a relevant article talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Update, I have changed the title per the discussion of the split and also added other content of the involvement of other parties.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion favoured splitting the sections, and I supported the split as well. I don't have strong views on what the title of the new article should be, so I boldly named it with "NATO" as the talk page discussion didn't come to an agreement on any name. The article only discusses American and British involvement (some from France as well), so it's not accurate to call this "Foreign" as there are many other foreign parties to the conflict. I don't mind the name of the article being changed so really we can snow close this as no further action needed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Rosguill, this editor has split the article to a new article called NATO involvement without any discussion about it. The term NATO is not even mentioned in the article talk page. Isn't this disruptive? The article title was designed to be called POVFORK. It was as if it was saying delete me. Now an editor who obviously seems not to be informed about the subject of the article is insisting that the article is a POVFORK even after I added all parties and fixed the title issue.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      SharabSalam, per the comment that they made above, Onetwothreeip doesn't have any issue with you renaming the page. The disagreements and misunderstanding related to the AfD is something that should be discussed in the AfD discussion. I don't see any reason for this issue to be addressed at ANI at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Rosguill, So... are you saying that it was OKAY for him to just split the article to that name without even informing us? This whole AfD wouldnt have occurred if this editor didnt title it that way. Yet, this editor gets no warning, absolutely nothing for this disruptive act.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      SharabSalam, the discussion was stale, there was a consensus to split but no consensus of what title to move it to. NATO was not mentioned in the discussion, so it was a valid attempt at a Bold solution to the problem. Perhaps Onetwothreeip should have realized that you were likely to oppose this, but I see nothing sanctionable here. If this was behavior that was being repeated over and over again despite it having been contested and brought to that editors attention, then ANI would be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Rosguill, okay, this editor was opposing the split that we were proposing. I have little doubt that they created that article with that obvious POV wrong title so that it gets deleted and if we attempted to split the article in a neutral way we would be referred to that AfD. Notice that he didn't vote in that discussion .--SharabSalam (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      SharabSalam, please assume good faith of other editors. You have now repeatedly accused Onetwothreeip of opposing the split, despite their first comment on it having been Strongly agree with splitting the article, you have provided no diffs substantiating this accusation, and Onetwothreeip has specifically asked you to stop misconstruing their position. As for not voting, that's their prerogative, and given what a trainwreck that AfD is (in part due to your unilateral decision to move the article while the AfD discussion was ongoing), it is in no way evidence of wrongdoing. Finally, please stop misgendering Onetwothreeip: their user page clearly states that they prefer they/them pronouns. I would strongly suggest that you stop trying to get an admin to impose sanctions at this time and go discuss the content dispute underlying this at the AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Rosguill, no they were opposing the proposal I gave with nonsensical reason. The problem with that is Saudi Arabia is a foreign country to Yemen as well. We could have an article for Iranian involvement, Saudi Arabian involvement, and involvement from all other countries. I want an admin to solve the problem in the deletion discussion. People are coming there thinking that the title is the POVFORK title. How can I solve this issue. The editor who nominated the article for deletion is not well-informed about the subject and obviously he saw the fucked up title and thought that it is POVSPLIT.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't the right place to discuss this, but I did oppose the article being titled as "foreign intervention" when it was only about the United States and the United Kingdom. Saudi Arabia is also a foreign country to Yemen, and its involvement in Yemen also constitutes foreign intervention/involvement. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Onetwothreeip, what in God's name is wrong with you? Who said we are going to add only the UK, France and the US? We were going to add Saudi Arabia, foreign private contractors, Iran etc. That was going to happen but now, you the one who only put UK, US and France only. And the title, wow. NATO?!!. I mean do you realize that there was no mention of the word "NATO" in the article(Not just the talk page) whatsoever?.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Please remain civil. One of the proposed splits was for the involvement from United States and United Kingdom. The following is what you said on the talk page. Just to let you know we will have three sections removed from this article "Allegations of Iranian involvement" "Western involvement" "Private military involvement". What I have split is essentially the "Western involvement" part that you clearly said you wanted to split. I decided to title it with NATO rather than Western, but the title isn't final. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Onetwothreeip, what? I was referring to Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. The reason we wanted to split is to remove content from that big sized article. How come Grayshark gets it and you don't? Your split was totally against the consensus in the talk page. Also, who lied to you and told you that you can boldly split the article to any title you want when there is a discussion about the title name and most editors have agreed for a different title than yours and your title is not even mentioned in the talk page?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip

    An IP editor provided further examples of questionable article splitting behavior from Onetwothreeip, documented here and here, and here. While any one of these examples could be dismissed as either a bold edit or a careless mistake, taken together they begin to add up to disruptive behavior. I would thus tentatively propose implementing a ban against implementing article splits for Onetwothreeip. signed, Rosguill talk 02:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosguill They were certainly bold edits but they weren't careless, and two of the three you have raised are still in effect. At List of unsolved deaths, I agreed to revert the split that I made, and I am glad that we came to an agreement to split the article in a different way. For Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, I became engaged in a very lengthy discussion where another editor was accusing me of causing a split article to be an orphan, which wasn't true, but I added more links to the article anyway. Although this editor did not disagree with the actual split that I made, they were trying to canvass other editors to report me to ANI by copy-pasting their grievances to other talk pages that I was participating on. Likewise with American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War, this was only an issue that resulted from the use of list defined references, and I was determined to find a quick solution, which involved me seeking out assistance while another editor had reverted the split. Once we were able to resolve the errors around references, we promptly restored the split.
    I have certainly made bold splits of very large articles, and whenever there has been disagreement about how to split them, I have sought out the views of participants at the talk pages. The vast majority of the splits I have made weren't contested, but of those that were, I am proud that myself and others have been able to come to good solutions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The splits do appear to have all eventually been resolved satisfactorily. However, the talk page discussions immediately following the splits themselves suggest that other editors nevertheless have found them a bit reckless. I think that even if we resolve this situation without any blocks or bans, you do need to be a bit more careful with these article splits. signed, Rosguill talk 05:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I certainly take that on board. I genuinely don't want other editors to feel negatively towards this, so I intend to take things easier moving forward. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support Cban I am so sick and tired of this editor behavior. Look at the mess they has created. As Corker1 said in Onetwothreeip's talk page,
    "Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure describes the following six steps that editors need to take when considering and conducting a page split:
    Step 1: Create a discussion
    Step 2: Add notice
    Step 3: Discuss
    Step 4: Close the discussion and determine the consensus
    Step 5: Perform the splitting
    Step 6: Clean up
    You performed Step 5" They always performs step 5 only. And this one was very likely a WP:Pointy split.
    Pinging other editors who have had the same issue with Onetwothreeip, BullRangifer, AndewNguyen, JalenFolf, Isaidnoway and Akld guy. Hopefully, I didn't miss anyone.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a discussion to split, the talk page wanted to split it, but it didn't come to an agreement on the title. I took a bold action to split and to give it a default title, which can be changed in the future. You don't seem to actually be objecting to the split, you claim to have supported splitting, the title is now the one that you have chosen, and you have accused me of being opposed to the split, so what exactly is the problem here?
    As for splitting articles generally, there have on a few occasions been issues, and they have been resolved quite properly through the talk page. Some of the people you have linked have nothing to do with splitting articles, they are editors with whom I have had disagreements on completely separate matters. This is quite obviously an attempt at WP:CANVASSING.
    However, as I want these actions to be more harmonious in the future, I will be taking things slower and seek greater consultation where possible. Let's put all this drama behind us. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing? The links above and the discussion above are totally related to them. We should actually have sent them an ANI notice. It doesnt surprise me that this isn't your first time to make these splits. I am surprised that editors haven't raised the issue yet to the ANI.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because most splits have been completely uncontroversial, and whenever there have been issues, they have been discussed and resolved through the talk pages. I would like for us to see if we can resolve the issues ourselves, without a noticeboard. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Onetwothreeip, the problem here is you. We were discussing this. Most editors agreed with Foreign involvement that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran etc etc. You went an made a completely irrelevant title with no discussion whatsoever, against the consensus and now wants us to discuss it? It is nominated for deletion, we cant split the article to an article for foreign involvement anymore. There is nothing called bold split when there is a discussion open and most editors agree with the title foreign involvement. You have repeatedly made splits without going through Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure. You are the problem here. Everything was fine until you made that split.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most editors agreed with Foreign involvement that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran etc etc. That's the entire article though. What split article(s) would you have preferred? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Onetwothreeip, What? Thats not the entire article? As I said we were going to include all these involvements and add a {{main|Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen}} over Saudi or Arab coalition involvement. Can you tell me why would you perform a totally different split without getting to the talk page and discussing it first and getting consensus?--SharabSalam (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting tedious. The talk page was discussing and favouring splitting out the "Western involvement" section, which detailed the involvement of United States, United Kingdom and France. What would you have preferred to split out? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Onetwothreeip, nope. The majority of them were supporting "Foreign involvement" see even the latest comment by Grayshark. I understand that you think your opinion is superior to other editors opinion and that you have got no respect to other editors prospectives as shown by your repeatedly splitting with no consensus and that you chose to name it to "NATO involvement" regardless of the discussion regardless of who is going to disagree. You don't even have to discuss the new title, you are superior to us. We don't have the wisdom that you have.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This really shouldn't be discussed here, it should be discussed on the relative article talk pages. I agreed with the consensus that determined the article should be split in this way, but I certainly admit that I acted boldly in naming the new article. I did not intend for this title to be permanent, and you have decided to change the title yourself, and I have not objected. I have to ask you though, what would you have preferred to split from the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Onetwothreeip, the problem is that the article got nominated because of your name and because of you bold split. You repeatedly have performed bold splits against a consensus in the talk page. The Cban will prevent further disruption. It is necessary because you have proved that you learned nothing from previous warnings. It will not affect your editing or your discussions in the talk page. It will make you discuss and listen to other editors prospective. Do you really want to perform more disruptive splits again?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    09:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

    The talk page clearly supported a split. I certainly don't perform bold splits when there is a consensus against splitting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to my complaints that Onetwothreeip's corrections were inadequate, Onetwothreeip stated that I should make these corrections myself. Onetwothreeip cited Wikipedia:Do it yourself when making these statements. I consider this to be just one of many examples of Onetwothreeip's failures to adequately collaborate with other editors after Onetwothreeip split articles without assuring that the splits did not significantly damage the pages that the split created.
    For further information, see my comments on Talk:Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker#Split page. Onetwothreeip did not respond to any of these comments. As I stated on that Talk page, Onetwothreeip did not revert the page split or correct most of the errors that the split had created. Among those errors were:
    The loss of 16 links to references that Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker contained but which Onetwothreeip did not copy to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker.
    The loss of much of the context of Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, as Onetwothreeip did not correct this loss after an editor placed a Template:Context tag at the top of the page.
    Onetwothreeip did not copy into Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker the Template:Use mdy dates that was located at the top of Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker, but which was retained only in Mythology of Benjamin Banneker.
    The split made Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker into an orphan that Onetwothreeip did not correct.
    The split carried over to Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker many references that were irrelevant to that page.
    I have therefore needed to make these corrections myself. This took a lot of time.
    In addition, Onetwothreeip removed comments that I have made on User talk:Onetwothreeip without notifying me or performing an "undo" action, which would automatically notify me of these actions. Onetwothreeip may have previously performed such actions earlier in response to other critical comments that editors have placed on User talk:Onetwothreeip. Corker1 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be completely honest here, I did my best to ascertain what issues you had but it was difficult to understand what you were trying to say. When I split the article, I can assure everyone that I did not create any errors. The issues with the articles were part of the original article before I came to it.
    Commemorations of Benjamin Banneker was not made into an orphan, and Corker1 demonstrated that they were completely misinterpreting the definition of an orphan article. They were relying on a definition that described an orphan page as one that does not have links from other mainspace articles. This of course simply means links from any articles, with mainspace meaning that there is no prefix before the page name, such as "Talk:" or "User:". Corker1 believed mainspace meant the article had to be linked from either Commemorations or Benjamin Banneker.
    For some reason, circular discussion kept happening about this on my talk page. I decided to add more links to the new article, but mostly I could not help any further so I suggested that Corker1 do the edits himself. Corker1 was making these demands that I make particular and specific edits, which I did not follow. I certainly didn't tell them to do these edits on their own immediately after they raised concerns with me, this was after some prolonged period where I was being bludgeoned with these demands. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Since I've been pinged twice now, I will comment to prevent further pings. Thanks. I was only a party to one of the splits mentioned above, the Timeline of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War, split from the parent article, American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War. The split simultaneously created several hundred cite errors in both articles seen here and also here. Those cite errors (over 500 of them) were eventually fixed by myself and another editor. I have no problem with editor's making bold edits, but if you choose to be bold, make sure those edits aren't going to be controversial or against consensus. And if your bold edit gets reverted, don't be upset and don't edit war, instead, discuss on the talk page and obtain a consensus for your bold edit. Furthermore, when making a bold edit - If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself. I would argue that any reasonable person would recommend fixing those several hundred cite errors yourself, instead of relying on (or hoping) that someone else will come along and fix the unambiguous errors for you. Instead of a cban, I would prefer that this editor make a firm commitment to follow the steps listed above (especially step 6: clean up), when performing any further bold splits, and listen to other editor's concerns and take on board some of the advice offered. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment. The simple reason why I didn't resolve those errors myself is that I didn't know how to. If I knew how to, I most certainly would have done so, and I did not anticipate the errors occurring. Whenever I see errors on Wikipedia that I can fix myself, I fix them whether or not I decided to make edits that day. While it's unfortunate that there were alarming messages generated in the References sections, I'd like to point out that no references were actually lost, it was just that there were redundant references in the section that weren't being defined. I was trying to get this fixed by asking people at different pages how I could implement the solution myself, and someone volunteered to do the bulk of that work. I did not ask anybody to fix the problem for me.
    I feel proud of my cooperations with other editors to find solutions, particularly ones who I have disagreed with. As a result of this controversy, collaborating with other editors is most certainly something I will give even more attention to. I can absolutely give you that assurance, as it's in my own interests to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple reason why I didn't resolve those errors myself is that I didn't know how to. If I knew how to, I most certainly would have done so, and I did not anticipate the errors occurring. That pretty well sums up why you shouldn't be splitting pages, then. Grandpallama (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, in light of their response, I have struck out my comment and now support a cban. Frankly, I just don't believe they didn't anticipate the errors occurring, when the day before when they trimmed the infobox, they created multiple cite errors, which I reverted with an edit summary detailing how the article used list-defined references – diff, they then reverted my edit with an edit summary that said Unused references should be removed from the article as a result - diff. So how could they not know, or anticipate, that the same exact cite errors would occur again when removing a large chunk of content from the article the next day. I also believe they saw the cite errors they created in the reference section in bold red text, which clearly states - (see the help page), where it explains in issues and resolution on how to fix the cite errors. I don't understand why they were asking people at different pages how I could implement the solution myself, when the solution was staring them in the face. Additionally, if they used the show preview button, and saw the hundreds of cite errors generated from their edit, and didn't [know how to] resolve those errors myself, they shouldn't have made the edit until they did know how to resolve those errors. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grandpallama: and @Isaidnoway:, I feel that I didn't express myself how I intended to. I completely agree that what I did was wrong, I was just trying to explain that I was trying to act in good faith and I made a mistake in not properly previewing the article before I published the split. I will most certainly agree from now on that I will be very carefully looking over the result of the attempted split, and if there are errors that I cannot immediately resolve, I will most certainly not make that split until they can be. Please do not take my previous comments as trying to justify what I did, as I am admitting that I shouldn't have gone about it the way that I did. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said that I did not anticipate the errors, I am saying that I did not take enough care to make sure there were no errors. I am not claiming for a second that I made sure there weren't errors, which was entirely my fault and I won't be repeating that. I certainly realise this and I regret my actions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just agree not to perform any splits, and leave them to other editors who are more proficient in this area? That is a very small area of Wikipedia editing, so there would be plenty of other things that you could do. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made about 150 split articles and the vast majority have occurred without any issues. The problem here was that this particular article used list defined references, which I was not familiar with. I'm fairly proficient in splitting articles generally, but I admit this was an instance where I should have slowed right down and been more careful not to generate any errors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Exactly. Onetwothreeip, I don't understand why? There are many things you can do other than the splits? The damage you did to the Yemeni civil war was so unacceptable. This is the lightest sanction that you can get for all the damage you have done in the Yemen civil war area. However, I will try to fix this issue slowly and carefully on the talk page and see how we can perform a split. I will start in the sandbox, I will work to fix any real issues. See if anyone is going to suggest a change and then recreate the article (if it got deleted) or edit it (if it didn't get deleted). Unlike you, I am not going to split the article to an article with a different title that the editors have agreed with and on top of that you didn't notify us. I only knew of the split when I saw the deletion discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What damage are you talking about? The deletion discussion is criticising the content of the article, which I have not written. Again, the talk page agreed to a split, but didn't come to an agreement on a title, so I boldly chose a neutral title which can be changed at any time. You changed the title of that article yourself, so there doesn't appear to be any problem there. As for notifying you, I clearly described the split in the edit summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You really need to show better judgment about where bold editing is appropriate. It's fine for articles about computer games or pop songs or football teams, but for articles about serious geopolitical issues much more care should be taken. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree. I certainly don't want to cause any controversy or distress, so I can commit to taking much more care around potentially contentious articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Onetwothreeip:Your message above to Phil Bridger stated that you: "can commit to taking much more care around potentially contentious articles. This is not an adequate committment.
    As you can read in the discussion on this page, the community is reaching a consensus to impose Cban (Community bans and restrictions) on you. Your repeated refusals to adequately respond to comments that a number of editors have placed on this page and on your user page is helping to achieve that consensus. I therefore suggest that you immediately place a message on this page that states that you will stop splitting Wikipedia articles. Corker1 (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not all I said. I also said that I will make sure all article splits do not result in errors before the splits are made, and I agree that contentious topics deserve greater care. Please feel free to ask me any questions you would like for me to respond, either here or my talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onetwothreeip: That is not enough. You have made similar statements in the past. Nevertheless, your splits continue to result in many errors.
    Further, you do not inform prior editors that you intend to split articles. When they learn about your inadequate splits, you do not satisfactorily respond to their complaints and suggestions.
    It is difficult to split articles without correcting errors that the splits create. As many comments above, in the Talk pages of articles that you have split and in User talk:Onetwothreeip indicate, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are either incapable or unwilling to do this.
    I therefore again suggest that you immediately place a message on this page that states that you will stop splitting Wikipedia articles. Corker1 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What past statements are you referring to? Whenever there have been issues, I have been more than willing to discuss them, in the few times that there was any dispute regarding splits I made. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Support a ban on splitting articles, largely based on the pattern that has been laid out of problematic splits in the past, the repeated acknowledgments by Onetwothreeip that they aren't prepared to deal with the damage repair that is necessitated by their overly bold splitting, and the ongoing IDHT here in response to editors asking them to voluntarily stay away from splitting. Grandpallama (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Grandpallama: Can you explain what you are referring regarding repeated acknowledgments by Onetwothreeip that they aren't prepared to deal with the damage repair that is necessitated by their overly bold splitting? What I have said is that if I split an article in the future, I will check the preview with great care and promptly deal with any errors. If there are errors which I cannot deal with, I would then not perform the split. My mistake was that I did not properly look at the preview to find these errors, and I completely accept that. The purpose should be to prepare articles so that repair isn't required from the start.
    I can confirm that I am voluntarily staying away from splitting, I have done so and I will not be splitting any articles for some time, but I do eventually want to return to splitting articles. I have made about 150 articles from splitting, and only a small few have resulted in any significant concern to this extent, with this being the first time that I have been reported to the AN/I over splitting articles. In the last few weeks I have been attempting to perform a greater amount of splits in a shorter amount of time than I have been doing in the past, which I deeply regret. If/when I return to splitting articles, I most certainly commit to taking much greater care than I have been taking as of recently. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done so and I will not be splitting any articles for some time, but I do eventually want to return to splitting articles. And therein lies the need for the ban from splitting. Grandpallama (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grandpallama: @Onetwothreeip: I completely agree with Grandpallama. Like a number of discussions on User talk:Onetwothreeip, this one has gone on too long. As Onetwothreeip is not willing to agree to permanently stop splitting articles, it is necessary to issue a Cban on Onetwothreeip's splitting. Corker1 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [O]nly a small few have resulted in any significant concern to this extent. Meanwhile, another split getting nominated. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Teen_Wolf_minor_characters and this ANI discussion is being referenced in the deletion discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing against that article being deleted. The issue there is entirely regarding content and not that this was a split article. I didn't want to make judgements on whether the content was notable or not before splitting, given it already exists. It doesn't appear that this ANI discussion has been brought up in that AfD. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this discussion is moving in circles at this point, with Onetwothreeip insisting that a ban is unnecessary and ban supporters remaining unmoved. I think that the consensus is in favor of the ban but would prefer if another admin closed this, as the cban is a remedy I proposed even if I haven't formally voted for it. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec with Rosguill's post above) Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into the mix but I oppose CBAN and support more-specific voluntary commitments – There is a problem here, but I'm not convinced it requires a CBAN. Three examples have been put forward:
      • List of unsolved deaths – It appears everyone involved agreed this article should be split, just not how. There was a discussion on the talk page about splitting that had slowed down [64]. Then 123IP performed a split. An editor complained on 123IP's talk page [65] (I thought the complaint was rude but 123IP's responses were cordial) about how the split was done. 123IP reverted. More cordial discussion on the talk page followed. The complaining editor then performed the split a different way, into List of unsolved murders and List of unsolved serial killer murders. The latter subarticle was draftified (I think as part of WP:NPP); it's been three months and it's still at Draft:List of unsolved serial killer murders. I would call this an unsuccessful split, by an editor other than 123IP, and I don't see this example as an example of 123IP doing anything wrong.
      • Mythology and commemorations of Benjamin Banneker – I strongly disagree with Corker's point on 123IP's talk page "Mythology_and_commemorations_of_Benjamin_Banneker" (reproduced above in this thread), essentially suggesting that WP:PROSPLIT doesn't allow WP:BOLD article splitting. PROSPLIT specifically allows BOLD splitting. I don't agree that after splitting, it is upon 123IP to draft the new content that Corker thought should have been added to the article. The editor doing the splitting doesn't have to make the resulting sub-articles exactly the way another editor wants it. The second editor is free to add the content to the sub-article if they think more content is needed (e.g., to provide context). However, I do agree that leaving one of the sub-articles as an orphan, otherwise not appropriately updating backlinks, and leaving citation errors, is not the right way to perform a BOLD split. So, I do see this as an example of a legitimate problem that was brought to 123IP's attention that 123IP did not adequately address.
      • American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War – Same as above; reference errors need to be corrected as part of a BOLD split. However, I understand that someone unfamiliar with list-style references may not have anticipated it or known how to fix it. The answer is that an editor must learn this before splitting any other articles that use list based references. Also, I agree with Phil that this was not an appropriate topic for BOLD splitting, but I think 123IP has taken that feedback on board as well.
      • That a sub-article is nominated for deletion after a split (e.g., List of Teen Wolf minor characters) doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the split.
      • So I think there are problems here, but that 123IP's eagerness to take these concerns on board means no CBAN is necessary. My big problem with a CBAN is that if we just prevent 123IP from splitting articles, then 123IP will never learn how to fix their mistakes–they'll never learn, for example, how to split an article with list based references. Instead of being prevented from splitting articles, I think what 123IP needs is more practice splitting articles. It won't benefit the encyclopedia to prevent a volunteer who wants to do a particular task, from doing that task. It benefits the encyclopedia if we teach the volunteer how to do the task correctly.
      • I agree that more-specific voluntary commitments from 123IP would go a long way towards assuaging editors' concerns that further splits won't be disruptive (e.g., cause citation errors, or orphaned sub-articles), and it'll allow 123IP to continue volunteering their time and also to become better at splitting articles. Specifically, I would suggest the following (some of which 123IP has already said they'd do):
        1. Be more conservative about which articles to split BOLDly – e.g., not major geopolitical topics – with the understanding that too much inappropriate BOLD splitting may lead to a future ban from BOLD splitting
        2. Not leave any orphaned sub-articles post-split
        3. Not leave any citation errors post-split – This may mean practicing a split in userspace by copying over an entire article, splitting it into two articles in userspace, then cleaning up the userspace sub-articles, to make sure 123IP can get to a place where there are no citation errors in the new sub-articles. If 123IP has trouble doing that, they can ask for help. Once 123IP is confident they can technically perform the split, then they can do the "real" split in mainspace. Yes, this means doing the split twice, and it will take 123IP twice as long, but in cases where 123IP isn't sure of their technical skills (e.g., list-based references), this is preferable to leaving citation errors in mainspace for others to clean up. If 123IP performs a BOLD split and sees citation errors they can't fix, they should self-revert the BOLD split, practice in their userspace, then do it again when they have it down.
        4. Not edit war over reverted splits
      • Maybe these list items should be re-worded, or entries added or removed, but I would generally support something like this over a total ban from splitting, because a total ban won't do the encyclopedia any good. – Levivich 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to agree with these commitments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban from splitting, especially a "permanent" one. Not seeing the IDHT of 123ip other editors seem to see. 123ip has stopped splitting and has repeatedly said they will take more care in future splits. Bans are preventative, not punitive. Unwanted behavior has stopped, a commitment to change has been made. Let's give a bit of rope. TelosCricket (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objections and oppose: I haven't looked into this very deep. I read through the section that was closed, figured it made since, and upon continuing to read I realized it was in fact not closed, even though it appeared to be, so is a continuation of a closed discussion. I became confused when the closing admin, apparently on talk page comments, decided to self-revert the closing decision then it went to a Cban discussion with some apparent canvasing issues. Either the closing should have been reversed or a new discussion opened and if we are going to look at a CBAN then something more than the page size split, with only one editor that agreed to the split just not liking how it was done. Also, if editors are going to be pinged then ping all the ones involved in all the articles in question. That would be why it is called a community ban. It seems obvious there have been issues. If the subject did create a split against consensus that is one problem. An agreed upon split that has issues could have been solved by BRD and other resolution procedures. I am not defending that concerns are invalid. I would offer that any split that degrades the current assessment of any article means the split likely should not happen. I do not see a level of conduct that would bring a suggestion of a permanent ban for sure.
    Per Levivich, TelosCricket, and comments from Onetwothreeip, I suggest this be closed. Otr500 (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing issues

    Onetwothreeip has alleged that SharabSalam has improperly canvassed some editors to this discussion. There was some back and forth discussion of this on my user talk page between those two editors here. From reading through the linked discussion that SharabSalam provided to justify the pings, three editors, JalenFolf, AndewNguyen, and BullRangifer were pinged in that discussion but did not participate, making it unnecessary to call them to this discussion. Further editors who did participate but have not been pinged were AlanM1, RopeTricks, MrX, and Drmies. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosguill, I apologize, I accidentally pinged them because their usernames were in that discussion but I didnt notice that they didnt participate. I dont know any of them. This doesn't change the fact that Onetwothreeip splits are mostly disruptive. I am actually having a fever and a sore throat and I was going to take break from wikipedia but when I noticed the deletion discussion and that this editor has split the article without notifying us so I returned and reported them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who I didnt ping, I pinged only those who have had problems regarding Onetwothreeip splits as I said above. The ip comment in that discussion tricked me because the IP pinged those editors and said In the past few days all of you have recently commented on similar problems this user has caused.. I assumed that the IP was replying telling them about the split Onetwothree has made. Again I apologize. This happened because I was so sick that time and I was even making a lot of mistakes in my comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth SharabSalam, I don't hold any grudges against you. Whatever happens, I hope we can both participate in the discussions and cooperate on what to do with the articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Coloursred1 and edits in tennis

    I'm going to boldly close this (although clearly involved ibelow) as discussion has halted. FTR, User:Jpgordon unblocked on 21 Dmr 2019, clarifying that Coloursred1 had been joe-jobbed, and by which time the original block had expired. Ths is now little more than a scarlet letter. ——SN54129 14:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Moved from WP:AN

    Coloursred1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    2020 Australian Open – Main Draw Wildcard Entries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Take at look at User:Coloursred1 and its vicious editing in Wikipedia that I have seen a rumor in the Australian Tennis Season swing that Maria Sharapova is about to appear in the upcoming Australian Open as the remainder of the Wildcards have not yet announced. Usually, this user continues editing without giving a reason on the subject rumor. ApprenticeFan work 13:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @ApprenticeFan: You did not notify Coloursred1 of this discussion per the instructions.
    But yes; that's one helluva unsourced-POV pushing single-handed WP:NOTLISTENING edit war from Coloursred1, with added BLP concerns. ——SN54129 14:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not counting the aggression [66]. And combined with their refactoring [67], [68] [69] of both the OP's comment and my response to it—!!! NOTHERE, anyone...? ——SN54129 14:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk:Libertarianism

    Not necessarily urgent, but would an uninvolved admin mind having a look over the "Neologism tag. Do not remove until resolved." section at Talk:Libertarianism. The discussion appears to have deteriorated to the point of focusing on other editors, their beliefs as regards the article subject, and foruming of the article subject itself; no longer a discussion of potential changes or improvements. I have tried to "hat" the off-topic parts of the discussion[70], but have been reverted[71]. Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 talk 04:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Another disruptive account, while AIV is locked

    (non-admin closure) Appears to have been resolved - User blocked by Johnuniq - D7a894f1d (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The nonsense edit summaries alone are good for a block, per WP:NOTHERE. 2600:1702:4000:8110:2155:4AFF:F5F9:39E8 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked them for a short time, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:C4B2:972D:AD9:DDC (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Johnuniq: I think 2600:1702:4000:8110::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is more likely to catch the next IP they use, based on the contribs of the previous two months. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to block 2600:1702:4000:8110::/64

    Any opinions on whether the /64 range should be blocked for a significant period (at least a month)? In that range, the following 12 IPs have edited, with the first being 10 November 2019:

    I don't have time at the moment for a thorough check, but several that I looked at appeared to be the same user having fun. Some edits could be defended as good faith, but IMHO they look like trolling designed to make editors argue for an hour whether such good-faith edits should be rolled back. If none of the above IPs are constructive, a significant block would be warranted. @AlanM1: any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I sampled each of the above and it is obviously one person mucking about. I blocked the /64 for three months. If anyone notices trouble at the articles they like, feel free to contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term edit warring, persistent restoration of content without consensus

    Appears to be one user, operating from multiple IPs. Latest edit summary describes intent. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semiprotected the article. (The IP-hopper said "please do not revert anything of my stuff because I will protect my edits..") There is now an active discussion on the talk page on whether to keep the IP's material. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, more of the same from that IP at Halifax Transit, complete with odd and deceptive edit summaries [72]. I don't know whether another article needs to be locked, or the user slowed down. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now semiprotected Halifax Transit as well. The user has multiple IPs but their changes are usually tagged with "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit". EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, EdJohnston. It's possible that disruptive edits are baked in, but God help me if I ever take further interest in Halifax Transit. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Olympics ip editor

    47.213.232.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Keeps adding falsified data to tables, claiming that the 2024 Youth Winter Olympics have been awarded to Pyongchang, when they have not. (here and here). ip has an extensive history of being uncooperative and quickly blanking their talk page. Cards84664 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The PerfectAngel et al

    User:The PerfectAngel is an editor whose mainspace edits, with the exception of two edits to The Challenge: Final Reckoning and one to The Challenge: War of the Worlds 2, are related to RuPaul's Drag Race. While there might be enough to alleviate WP:NOTHERE concerns, user has violated WP:NOTWEBHOST with User:The PerfectAngel/sandbox and User:The PerfectAngel, which are now at WP:MFD... as are five RPDR-esques WP:NOTWEBHOST violations created by another user User:Katsynna, who is a WP:NOTHERE. CU is possibly stale by now, so it's unlikely both accounts can be connected, so I'm going here instead of WP:SPI to see if any of the two accounts can be blocked as nothere. Pinging @Whpq:

    Sorry, forgot to sign. ミラP 01:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was the one who nominated all the game playing and whatnot pages. I've seen lots and lots of fake drag race games (as well as fake big brother and others). I don't see anything that strongly connects these two accounts. AS for blocking them for not here, I'll leave that to an admin to weigh in. -- Whpq (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oversight at Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Tomis

    Please oversight Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Tomis, there is no WP:OUTING so it can be rendered here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing there rises to the level of requiring oversight. I've dropped a NPA warning on the IP's talk page though. Blackmane (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blackmane: Ok, good to know. On ro.wiki obscenities and personal attacks usually get hidden from public view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blackmane: Oh, yes, the culprit is 93.122.250.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: there are very specific requirements for Oversight on en.wp, please see WP:OVERSIGHT. Also, Oversight requests should be sent to the oversight request email and not on a very public page such as ANI. Blackmane (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Doncram's actions ignoring the AfD Result and now edit warring

    On January 1, Doncram redirected the article saying it was discussed at AfD. For the recored the !vote rationales were 5 keep, 2 redirect. The closer closed this as Keep I reverted the editor's redirect and posted on the article talk page and on the editor's talk page but Doncram quickly erased my comment called me a "jerk" for pinging and said they "disagree" with me (in their edit summary). The editor then went to the article and began erasing references (depreciating the article), here and here. I asked the editor to self-revert on the talk page of the article. I also posted on the editor's talk page however the editor erased my comment again.
    I have reverted one of Doncram's depreciating edits on the article, because the editor mistakenly thought they were erasing a duplicate reference. (It is actually two books by the same author). However the editor returned to revert me and erase the reference again. Now putting up walls of text to justify their behavior.

    Proposal: I ask that Doncram be instructed to follow the WP:CONSENSUS policy regarding the result of the AfD. I also ask that Doncram refrain from further erasing references on the Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) article and edit warring to their preferred version.

    Umm, this is not worth much discussion. Yes, I redirected the article, and Lightburst disagreed and reverted me, and I did not re-redirect. I directed Lightburst to discuss the content of the article at its Talk page, which is going on, sort of. Lightburst has conveyed in comment there and/or in edit summary that they think an AFD "Keep" decision means an article is locked in terms of its content, which is simply false. Discussion about content, including whether to keep padding added during the AFD process, should take place at the Talk page. I see no reason for discussion about this at AFD. --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A case of WP:IDHT: Lightburst disagreed and reverted me. It is not that I disagreed - it is the result of an AfD and community input. The editor wants the article deleted or redirected and took unilateral action against consensus and now IMO is reverting the article to a version which supports that conclusion. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This might be worth a look at deletion review; I'm not convinced by the closer's (non-)evaluation of the WP:GEOLAND arguments. I probably would have evaluated that discussion as a consensus to redirect, given the relative paucity of sources for writing an article. Otherwise, I tend to agree with Doncram that there's nothing to do here. The talk page is in use, and an AfD keep result doesn't preclude a subsequent redirect or other refactoring if editors decide that's a good idea inasmuch as the content is still kept, just somewhere else. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For the record, the AFD vote count asserted above is wrong, omitting an explicit "Delete" vote and the nominator's (my) implicit delete vote. And by my count, Lightburst made more total edits in the AFD discussion (13, compared to 12 by me, the deletion nominator). And Lightburst still has not responded in the Talk page discussion to what they label above as "wall of text", in which I explained to Lightburst why I deleted the padding reference, while a couple other editors have agreed there that the deletion is appropriate. I don't know if Lightburst should be scolded or anything for opening this AFD, I personally don't care, but I do believe this section is otherwise ready to be closed. Anyhow, good night to all. --Doncram (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to see here except your end-run around Wikipedia consensus policy. And now you depreciated the article to favor deletion, the guide on lakes will also be ignored. WP:GEOLAND#4. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just going to relist it on exactly that basis. Guy (help!) 13:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Without so much as a deletion review? Great. I will likely never get used to the fact the Administrators sometimes act unilaterally. This was out of order. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst, I don't think there's anything wrong with Guy's relisting. The AfD discussion shouldn't have been closed by this user, all he's done is undo that action. (FWIW, I'm concerned to discover that the account in question was closing AfD discussions - I interacted with him a lot over the last few months, and even if he hadn't been socking, I have doubts over his competency in this area.) GirthSummit (blether) 15:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is how else could it have been closed? It was a clear consensus. Also we often have sock participation in AfDs (there more than any other area) and we do not cancel the result two weeks later. There are avenues: Deletion review...or a second AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst, sock participation is one thing, but a sock of a banned user closing the discussion? That seems pretty unusual to me. All I'm saying is that I don't think that there was anything wrong with Guy's action, in the circumstances - I'm not aware of a specific policy with regard to AfD discussions, but undoing the actions of the sock of a banned user doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me. GirthSummit (blether) 16:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. If someone had taken ownership of the close before Guy had reverted, maybe it was worth just letting that be. But a close by a globally locked sock is completely tainted. In such a case, the only logical WP:NOTBURO way that applies is that the closure can be reversed without wasting time on a dumb discussion because some party is so sure that there is no other way the discussion can be closed yet for some reason is afraid to alone the discussion to run for a bit longer until an editor in good standing closes it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I'll just say that Lightburst has a point here. Why bother relisting now (with the AN/I denizens all about) if the discussion could have been re-assessed? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: sorry but that makes zero sense. As far as we all should be concerned, the AfD was never actually closed. Maybe it didn't have to be relisted, but the close needed to be reverted. The was never any possibility of 're-assessed'. The discussion was never actually assessed because banned socks do not get to close discussions. Anyone who thinks that banned socks get to close discussions shouldn't be at ANI and frankly should be involved in any type of XfD. This discussion was opened by LightBurst, so the only reason "AN/I denizens all about" is because Lightburst opened this IMO pointless ANI. That said, thank you for at least being honest about the point. Lightburst implied there was no way the discussion could be closed in any way, yet somehow was super worried about it being re-listing rather than taken to deletion review even though logically both will lead to the same outcome. As I implied, this made no sense. The most likely reason of course is that Lightburst didn't want the wider attention coming from their own actions. Sorry but you get no sympathy from me if attention from a broader spectrum of participants leads to a different outcome than you'd like. Frankly any contributor here should be happy if a discussion gets wider attention provided it isn't in the form of canvassing or comments which do nothing to achieve a most stable and well supported broad-based consensus (or establish the lack of one). Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping MJL - and your thoughts: ANI is full of snarly editors like Nil Einne. Instead of helping, they come here to growl. I am Oz the great an powerful! Who are you?! I have learned that ANI can be a colossal waste of time and full of frustration. Nil Einne's dislike of my ANI has been noted several times in this thread - lots of assumptions have been made by the editor. Nothing nothing Nil Einne has said here or anywhere in this discussion has been helpful. For instance here is a typical assumption: super worried about it being re-listing rather than taken to deletion review That is not the case at all. I just dislike when unilateral action is taken - we have processes in place. The other assumption is that somehow there is an approval of a sock closing the AfD. It is waste of time to address such an assumption. I am checking out of this ANI now, talk amongst yourselves. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lightburst: You know... calling editors snarly isn't the best way to make friends. How about use a more playful term like "grumpy" or something kind like "disheartened"? It's incredibly poor form to make off-hand remarks like you just did (regardless of who it is directed at). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: My preference for the term is simply of pragmatic consideration. The first close was invalid; it's irrelevant how it is invalid. If an admin closed the discussion saying "this is a supervote" then it'd be invalid too. Still, I'd say the discussikn needs to be "re-assessed" just like someone would use the term "re-examined" (First examination not required). To be clear, Lightburst opened up this thread with a specific intent to examine a user's behaviour. This was not an attempt to get wider discussion on the deletion outcome. The point being made was that Doncram ignored the results of an AFD close. That the AFD later turned out to be closed by a sockpuppet is immaterial to the facts at hand; all the actors present thought it was legitimate.
    As to my denizens of AN/I comment, I highly encourage you to put yourself in the place of a user who isn't particularly well loved by several participants of this board. Re-opening the conversation at this point makes the AFD an unnecessary outgrowth this one. That takes up editor time best spent else imo. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen this done far too often. Someone nominates an article for deletion, fails to get it deleted, so waits a month so less people are around to notice and tries to eliminate it with a redirect. Should be a bot to detect how many redirects were created by someone who previously nominated the article for deletion and failed. Dream Focus 14:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed this is a very good suggestion and such redirects should be highlighted in some way, for others to partrol. Dream Focus, Please also propose it on WP:VP]] to get this implemented in some way. Much needed. Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 14:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's far more common for people unhappy with a redirect consensus to sneak back when nobody's watching and restore the redirected article. The D&D enthusiasts in particular are known for this. Your hypothetical bot should be able to cope with this tactic as well, no? Reyk YO! 14:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reyk that is also true. I have seen that happen as well. Both are sneaky and against policy. Some sort of page protection might be in order for a time after a clear consensus is reached and an AfD closes. In this case an administrator has now skipped the step of deletion review and relisted this AfD. I am sure they can justify it in their mind, but it is still disheartening. As someone who also participates in many AfDs I am sure you understand the frustration. Not only did I respond to this editor's walls of text in the AfD but I actively improved the article. And when the editor did not get their desired deletion they waited two weeks and then redirected- which if we are being honest, is another way to delete. Lightburst (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'd be making it more tricky if the proposed bot were having to look for an editor who had initiated an AfD. After all, they could simply undo/redo the redirect while they were logged out, which would defeat it. What you'd probably need to look for is simply an article being converted to a redirect / converted from a redirect where that article had been at AfD in the previous X months. You'd get quite a few false positives, too - any AfD that had been closed as "Merge" would appear when the content was finally merged and redirected. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish people would use AfD for its originally intended purpose, which is simply to decide whether or not an admin should hit the "delete" button. If the decision is "no" then nothing has changed, and the article can be edited and things like redirecting and merging can be discussed on the talk page in the same way as could have been done in the absence of a deletion discussion. I have noticed that Lightburst has even taken several articles to deletion review recently where he doesn't want deletion and the decision of the AfD was also not to delete the article, but just a different flavour of non-deletion from what that editor wants. It is a colossal waste of everyone's time to discuss issues that don't involve deletion at locations where the "D" stands for deletion. Just use the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I use the forums which are appropriate, and are specifically designed to make the encyclopedia work. Funny that you have no problem with Doncram's obvious circumventing of the rules, and yet you frown on me for using the forums which are allowed. I appealed controversial closures, and lost. I am sorry that you see that as a waste of time. I respected the conclusions of those reviews and did not undo the results. I will still respect you. Wish you would respect that we have rules and avenues to get to the right result here. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the "rules" in such much are they exist, are that redirects don't need to go through AfD since they are not a form of deletion. There are appropriate forums to discuss redirects proposals and AfD isn't really one of them. This doesn't mean editors should ignore AfD results where the outcome was clearly not in favour of redirecting, but if you're using AfD when all your want is a redirect, you're doing the wrong thing, and I don't see why you respect you. The fact that you're advocating we ignore the fact a globally locked sock closed the AfD, gives us even less reason to respect you. Frankly, I initially had some sympathy with your PoV when I read your first post, but I lost it the more and more I read your followups until this post of yours was the final straw as it were, since you seem to be explicitly advocating misusing forums for the wrong purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I am just trying to build an encyclopedia. I have wasted too much time on this friction, and I need to stop. Whether you like me or sympathize with me is unimportant. The policies and guidelines are important. And I have done my level best to follow those. I am not advocating we ignore the fact a globally locked sock. But if the closure was correct, then it does not matter. reclose. Instead it is reopened without following any policies. Lightburst (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's a policy that says that if an AfD closes keep, it's not OK to redirect or merge, either BOLDly through the BRD process, or by starting a discussion on the talk page. If you think that's what the rules should be, then propose a change to some policy making it so. But I don't think that's current policy. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I often see AfD closers saying "no consensus to delete, merge or redirect can be discussed on the article talk page," or something like that. – Levivich 18:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: The common convention is that redirects are a lesser form of deletion and merges are a lesser form of keeping. In general, I would say that a bold merge is fine in those cases, but never a straight redirect (since the content has consensus for inclusion in the encyclopedia). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL, that makes sense! – Levivich 17:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would take issue with what you claim to be the common convention. Both merging and redirection (but not "delete and redirect") are forms of keeping, because the content is still in the article history where any editor can see it without having to be an admin, and everyone, not just admins, has the technical ability to revert, although it would nearly always be best to hold an article talk page discussion before doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    @Phil Bridger: The way I said it is exactly how AfD stats reports it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How some tool reports it is irrelevant. Articles that are redirected without being deleted first have simply, factually, not been deleted, but edited. It is an action that needs no administrator powers, which editors (such as I) perform regularly without going through an attention-seeking AfD discussion first. I don't understand why so many people don't get that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you would "get it" if you had ever NPP'd a newly created article that is a clear candidate for being turned into a redirect, then seen it being reverted back again and again by the (usually newbie) editor. Being a new article, it will have zero watchers; good luck with any discussion on the talk page. The only way to get a redirect to stick under these circumstances is to boot it to AfD and have consensus put a stamp on it. This is both sensible and standard usage, and I'm getting increasingly ticked off with people who rail against this "misuse" of AfD. It isn't a misuse. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The way to get a redirect to stick in the face of edit-warring when it is obvious or has consensus on the talk page (which can be reached, as it can in a deletion discussion, by a failure to provide reasoned opposition) is simply to ask for the redirect to be protected. WP:AFD has always been for articles that you want to be deleted - the clue is in the "D" in its title. I know that fewer people will see your name about the place if you discuss things on article talk pages rather than very public forums such as AfD, but we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia here, not promoting ourselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice malicious insinuation from someone who seems to spend the majority of their time commenting on absolutely every scrap of text on the drama boards... but suit yourself; the redirect discussion functionality of AfD will continue in absence of your approval, I fancy. Let's keep this more palatable: I am both annoyed and disappointed by that insinuation, and do not intend to engage further on that level. Over and out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • (EC) My view: AfDs shouldn't generally be used if the desired outcome is to turn the article into a redirect while keeping the edit history. However if the outcome of an AfD is clear that the article should be kept and not as a redirect, then this should be respected. Since WP:Consensus can change it would be reasonable to open a discussion on the article talk page, or very rarely, to turn the article into a redirect without discussion after a period of time, just as opening another AfD. It's fairly unlikely a month is long enough, just as it isn't generally long enough to open a new AfD.

      If there was no clear consensus on whether the article may be turned into a redirect in the AfD, then it seems reasonable to move that discussion to the article talk page after the AfD closes.

      Care should always be taken when assessing consensus to ensure that the editors were truly opposed to turning an article into a redirect. While it is one possible outcome, since AfDs aren't really intended for discussing turning an article into a redirect, it possible some editors may say "keep" when they wouldn't be opposed to turning the article into a redirect as they don't consider it the best place for such a discussion.

      I have not looked at the particular discussion, so I have no view on whether the AfD was clearly opposed to turning the article into a redirect, for reasons I outlined in other posts, I don't trust the judgement of the OP, and I definitely don't trust the judgement of the banned closer.

      Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not impressed with Doncram merging without any attempt at a formal merger discussion, which is what was really needed at the moment. The keep verdict at AFD was fairly strong, so obviously a new consensus was going to be necessary to merge. The problem is that Domcran acts too boldly before undertaking actions that are clearly controversial. Eliteplus (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eliteplus: Thanks for your comments. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am so confused at all the discussion about a stub article for which there are few sources on the web or in books. And, now there's a relisted Afd. Sure, it could have it's own article, but why is it necessary over having a mention in the Brown County, Minnesota article? (This is a rhetorical question. I see all the points why people want to keep the article.) Just a little gobsmacked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close this thread I've commented above, so won't do it myself, but there doesn't seem to be any need for administrative intervention. The reopened deletion discussion is ongoing, with an unusually high level of attendance: whatever its eventual outcome, I'm sure it will be respected - the continuation of this thread seems to be in nobody's interest. GirthSummit (blether) 01:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor Continues The editor has continued their tendentious editing at the AfD and in the article. In addition they have !voted at the AfD twice - I struck the second !vote. Furthermore, several editors have tried to improve the article and the editor continues to fillet it. Lightburst (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Girth Summit: No, please do not close the thread until somebody points out to User:7&6=thirteen that the AfD nomination page is no place for extraneous discussions on AfD ethics, a discussion which 13 has already started at the article talk page. Such a thread on an AfD nom page does nothing except defocus discussion from where it should be and unnecessarily personalise a page which is already unnecessarily personalized. ——SN54129 16:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh look... I was exactly right about this kind of thing happening, Nil Einne. You see what I mean now? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The conduct of the AFD participants and their vandalization/Bowdlerization/destruction/rewrite (if we disregard the pattern and timing and WP:AGF) of the article (and what the article is and should be) are pertinent and fair game on this page. I am willing to discuss the merits of edits on the article talk page. But rigging the system needs to be called out at the AFD discussion. As I told User:Serial Number 54129 Do not remove my comments. We all know better.
    I did not start this thread. I would not be here, but for User:Serial Number 54129's gratuitous and unsubstantiated accusation. He says I am now involved. And that is my reply. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you kind of involved yourself by—err—dumping that massive text, all out-of-process-like, on the AfD page. Please remove the level-2 headed thread and continue the discussion either here (if you believe it to regard egregious behavior) or on the talk. ——SN54129 16:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we could, Girth Summit, but it's an arduous trip from ANI...
    Groan. I'm not going to close it Serial Number 54129, but, at the risk of sounding like a patronising ass, I'll suggest that everyone take a moment and consider that we're all snarling at each other over an editorial decision on whether to have a short article about a lake, or just to include the same information in a list of lakes. More than one person hasn't acted perfectly, but I don't think we need any blocks/bans/protection. Don't suppose anyone feels like saying 'fuck it, it's not worth falling out over', and all metaphorically piling into the nearest pub? GirthSummit (blether) 16:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about escalation.
    Girth Summit It is quite a shit show. Over small lake out of 10,000 lakes in Minn. Accusations and refactoring of AfD comments, and erasures on the article. Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To add a cooler-headed perspective to this, I think Warren Zevon presaged the overkill involved here when he wrote Lawyers, Guns and Money See Warren Zevon - Trouble & Lawyers, Guns and Money - David Letterman Show, 1988 April 14, 2011 via YouTube. And as a lawyer and wikipedia editor of 12 years, I know whereof I speak. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, 1988, when in the US the word 'shit' was bleeped even on late night television...--valereee (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • valereee, My potty language demonstrates my frustration. The community here could have considered my proposal. Which was to give the editor a warning. However the community and the ANI board seems to prefer this drama. And now we are heading for some editor to lose their cool and get disciplined over this small lake in Minn. IMO the simple way was to reclose that AfD...and warn this editor not to go against consensus with a redirect, and not to eviscerate an article to favor there desire to redirect. I did not ask that there be any sanctions, blocks, TBAN etc. Then we could all go about our business. But here we are. Lightburst (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lightburst: Try not to worry too much. I assure you things will turn up alright in the end. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, every time something like this happens it’s “just” over an article about a lake, or a minor fictional character, or a list of left-handed banjo players, or whatever. But these are chronic and ongoing issues. Specifically the attacks on AfD nominations, the brigading, the bludgeoning, the escalating to DRV or ANI, etc. I fear it’s reaching a boiling point. – Levivich 19:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Undiscussed changes to ~1,500 pages using AWB

    On 11 December 2019, Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) unilaterally changed ⟨²⟩ to ⟨ˇ⟩ on Help:IPA/Swedish and Help:IPA/Norwegian and made around 1,500 edits to pages that contained the symbol inside {{IPA-sv}} or {{IPA-no}} using AutoWikiBrowser, in spite of MOS:PRON#Other languages' recommendation to discuss changes to IPA keys in advance. Kwamikagami also unilaterally changed ⟨¹⟩ in Swedish transcriptions to ⟨ˈ⟩, although ⟨¹⟩ had been introduced after a discussion months earlier. When asked to point to the consensus for these changes, the user responded, "The consensus is that we use IPA for IPA", without providing any specific policy, guideline or discussion.

    Although the introduction of ⟨²⟩ was not based on an explicit consensus either (but discussed and agreed on by two editors nonetheless), the fact it had been in use on so many pages for more than three years illustrates an implicit yet well-established consensus. I asked for comments on this matter at Help talk:IPA/Swedish, pinging ten users who had recently edited or discussed the Swedish guide, and no one has come out in favor of the new ⟨ˇ⟩, while three have explicitly spoken against it.

    I would simply apply BRD if the changes were made only to the guides or to a handful of pages, but the sheer scale of them is making me reluctant to revert them and risk inciting a massive edit war. I want to ask whether Kwamikagami was allowed to make these changes without consulting others first and whether they should keep their privileges, particularly AWB. Nardog (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, IPA templates should be in IPA, or they're misleading to our readers. You can always find editors who wish to substitute in-house conventions, but such walled-garden usage is detrimental to an encyclopedia with a world-wide scope. We've long had agreement that digits should not be used for tone in Asian, American or African languages. It's only in a few European languages that spurious IPA tone numbers continue to be used. In this case, several publications of the IPA itself explicitly recommend these characters for the two tones of Swedish and Norwegian. They're dated, but at least they're not actually wrong. I don't see why fixing the IPA to actually be IPA needs prior permission, any more than fixing any other error. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic forum
    • Actually, no one but specialists has any idea what the IPA hieroglyphics mean, and they shouldn’t be cluttering up article leads in the first place. EEng 08:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      How do I upvote this insight? WilyD 08:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Surely you mean Haʊ du aɪ ʌpvoʊt ðɪs ˈɪnˌsaɪt? EEng 13:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      EEng, when I started to learn English (at age 9 or 10), my textbooks used IPA, and we had some lessons in how to read IPA symbols. I have also never used a French dictionary without IPA. I don't really see how you can learn how to pronounce foreign words (especially in languages that do not have a good correspondence between sound and spelling) without something like IPA, or learning language-specific extra letters like hanyu pinyin or bopomofo. Just a non-specialist opinion... —Kusma (t·c) 13:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of such large-scale changes when the talk page already made it clear that people would have disagreed. Then again, I hesitate to be too critical of Kwami's mass edit. If an editor is willing to discuss the matter, presumably they're also willing to fix their own large-scale changes if discussion steers towards a consensus they initially disagreed with. AGF prompts us to believe this about other editors without clear evidence to the contrary. I have seen a number of instances when Kwami implemented a consensus that they personally disagreed with.
    If other people are expecting to punish Kwami for an epic game of BRD or, even worse, to explicitly get them to say that they'll self-revert if consensus goes against their stated position, I would hope that we can at least acknowledge that this carries with it a pretty strong assumption of bad faith. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoffemerick account

    William Zabaleta is a talent manager, one of his former clients Geoff Emerick, a grammy winning recording engineer. An account User:Geoffemerick claimed to be emerick himself in 2017. The account was editing about his own articles. Unfortunately, Emerick died in 2018, but this account keeps on editing articles related to William Zabaleta, his agency and his clients. I suspect a case of shared accounts, UPE, and COI, and a general sense of disgust for the talent agency. Daiyusha (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The use of an account in the name of a person who died recently is also in extremely poor taste. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty despicable. Blocked for UPE, promotional editing and impersonation. Yunshui 雲水 10:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP spamming and reverting themself

    I don’t know where the best place to post this would be. I’m curious what should/can be done to deal with the behavior of an IP at Apple Look Around. They’ve been adding a bunch of crap/incorrect information to the page and then promptly removing it. If nothing else it gums up the revision history. To the point that it is now the entire first page and half of the second page of edits. It seems overkill to protect a page that is as relatively un-trafficked as it is. redspartatalk 11:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the article back to prior to the Ipv6 editor starting. Pretty sure it's one person or minimally one company. I think the only other editor was the OP. If it starts up again, either the IP will need to be rangeblocked, or the page semi protected. WP:RPP would likely have been your best venue for this. John from Idegon (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a month. Zerotalk 11:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor won't delete company page

    Hi,

    My name is Shira and i'm head of marketing for Comsec. I have followed the deletion request procedures twice, and the editor wrote: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Comsec Consulting. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

    Our management team is not interested in having a Wiki page for Comsec, which is why i asked for it to be deleted. I have spent a few hours trying to see how i can communicate this request otherwise. As a private company, we have to have the option to do. Can i please ask for someones help on this?

    Thank you very much. Best, Shira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.30.250 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately, this is not how deletion works at Wikipedia. In your previous two attempts to delete the article, you first blanked it (which is disruptive, and doesn't delete it anyway) and then used the PROD template, which is only for obviously non-notable articles. The valid reasons for deletion are at WP:DEL#REASON and do not include the subject's wish to do so. You could try WP:AFD, but I'd suggest, looking at the article, that it is probably notable per WP:CORP and would not therefore gain consensus for deletion. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) I assume this is about Comsec Consulting. To be blunt, we don't really care what your management team is or is not interested in. As a private company, you do not get to dictate what others write about your company, with a few very limited exceptions relating to defamation and similar, but simply writing about the existence of your company clearly doesn't qualify as defamation. In other words, as a private website, we get to chose what we do and do not write about. Once a WP:PROD has been removed, you do not get to add it back. Your only option is to take it to WP:AFD. But if you take it to AFD with the reasoning that your management team doesn't want the article, it will fail. I'm not certain from the article whether or not your company meets our WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (organisations and companies). Although the sourcing seems limited, I do see some info suggesting there may be enough reliable secondary source coverage. Regardless, this is best assessed by someone familiar with our sourcing requirements, not by you someone with a WP:COI who only wants to page gone because your management team doesn't like it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A few years ago, an individual successfully had a bio article of himself deleted. The individual was a (by then) known critic of Wikipedia. PS - Can't remember the fellows name. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP applies to critics of Wikipedia too?!  ;) ——SN54129 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fellow founded Wikipedia Watch, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay, Daniel Brandt. Guy (help!) 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BIODELETE, biographies of living persons are basically the only area where the wishes of a subject comes into consideration when it comes to article deletion, in a very limited set of circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I find it interesting that the page was originally created by User:Shar1R [73], an editor who's main other contributions seem to have been creating an article on another Israeli company GigaSpaces [74] and one of their products Cloudify [75], and some Israeli band Nikmat HaTraktor [76]. Suffice it to say, this wouldn't be the first time some company had once thought it a good idea to pay for an article to be written about them only to later come to regret it. Although if this was what happened here, I don't really see anything that bad about the article, regardless of whether the info in it is completely up to date with what the company does now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment These issues are solved so easily just by opening an articles for deletion discussion. Shira, we keep articles where notability can be demonstrated. If enough editors can reach a delete consensus, the article will be deleted. Eliteplus (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Well depends what you mean by solved I think. From the way the AFD is heading, I don't think the article is going to be deleted. And so given the OP's previous comments, I'm not sure if they would consider it an acceptable solution. Still let's hope they take our counsel onboard and accept that's how things work here even if they're not happy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kavin Mudaliar

    Kavin Mudaliar is engaging in edit war, dispute and adding regional research, and already informed. Over to Admin. --AntanO 17:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    AntanO, I think this report should be at WP:AN3 rather than here, but from a cursory inspection it does look like Kavin Mudaliar's approach to editing is concerning - they're getting reverted a lot, and there's not much in the way of talk page participation from them. GirthSummit (blether) 18:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amirhosein Izadi

    I am surprised that my proposal to ban User:Amirhosein Izadi on account of hoaxing was archived without being refused or heeded. A subsequent sockpuppet investigation had a checkuser request declined, but hoaxing is still a bannable offense, right? I saw no counterarguments being made in the last discussion in regards this user being a hoaxer. He's done this multiple times and has voiced no intention to stop. So, again, i believe it may be necessary to block this user to prevent him from creating further hoaxes. Once he's stopped from creating further hoaxes i'd like to go through his articles and see what is and isn't a hoax. Please consult Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Turkmen Sahra and the previous ANI thread as to how i've deduced this user is a hoaxer. I find this case bizarre, never before have i seen an unopposed proposal be archived and ignored. Koopinator (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's possible that your thread was archived due to inactivity rather than because an admin declined your request; I think WP:ANI has an automated script which does that. I think one of the issues also is that the user (Amirhosein Izadi)) stopped editing a week ago so the situation would appear at first glance to be less urgent. In the mean time, I think it would be helpful to go through his contributions to identify potential hoaxes. I have tagged one article already as a hoax which you identified, and I am willing to take a look through his history later today to see if I see anything obviously fake. Michepman (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my first ANI thread was created only a few hours after that user's last edit. The only reason i'm now creating this thread on a week-long inactive user is because the admins have been taking their sweet time with taking action. I think it's better for me to get to work with these hoaxes now rather than wait for the day that the admins actually enforce this consensus. Hopefully that day comes sooner than later. Koopinator (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Koopinator: in my experience, just grab the nearest admin and ask for their comment. Also, the less words you make people have to read, the better. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an admin, but have been noticing this case as it develops. Archiving is automatic; it appears your thread was simply overlooked. Good on you for bringing it up again. I support an indefinite block on the hoaxer. If no admins respond, as MJL said, you may have to ask someone directly. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: can you please look at this thread and take action? Koopinator (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed it twice because the OP linked to it in their initial post, so your link is unneccessary. Surely you know how to look at the revision history of this page to (a) see it was I and (b) see my edit summary explaining why I removed it. But all that for absolutely nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: Doh...Thanks, by the time I look for the diff, there are always so many new posts that I could not be bothered to weed through them all. I just kept reposting. I also did not see that the OP included it and that is my mistake. Lightburst (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's quite concerning. FWIW, I did see the earlier thread. Did not comment at the time in part because what I saw was suspicious but also quite difficult to assess given the obscurity of the subject matter of what they were dealing with. They failure to offer us any explanation was not re-assuring, still I also did not want to kick out an editor who may be an expert on an obscure non English subject area just because of a misunderstanding. While I can't say for sure, I wonder if other than the time of year others also felt the same, hence the limited response. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: At this point i don't think there's any remaining doubt as to this user being a hoaxer. Consider the article Ice Flower (album) by the same creator. "Ice Flower has been featured in several prestigious publications, including the Los Angeles Times" - this sentence is sourced to this article, freely available online. The reference looks convincing, it is from the right publication and the title looks related to the subject matter, the only problem is the source's text does not make a single mention of an album called ice flower. It is deliberately intended to deceive the reader into thinking the reference & info is legitimate when it isn't - a textbook definition of a hoax. I see no reason to keep this thread open or keep this user unblocked. When i first failed to find the sources, my mind went to the Bicholim conflict investigation from 2012. In that case, the AFD immediately led to the article being deleted in a day and the editor being banned within a week. I wish this investigation would've gone that smoothly - that there's wouldn't be a need to wait a week on my unopposed AFD, that i wouldn't have to make 2 ANI threads, no separate sock investigation, no cross-wiki shenanigans, no admin user saying it could all be a misunderstanding and that jazz. Koopinator (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pmoore2222 COI

    Despite repeated warnings in the past at User talk:Pmoore2222, this user is again editing in a way that raises serious COI concerns. Note that his entire list of User Contributions, dating back to 1 April 2009, consists solely of edits to what appears to be his own bio. NedFausa (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SinclairCEO

    Maybe this should have gone to AIV, but it's a slightly complicated. I think Special:Contributions/SinclairCEO needs a block. While I have no idea if any of this is true [77], their first edit was this [78] which I strongly suspect is not true. Someone has been trying to add such nonsense for a few months now [79] [80] [81] [82]. The last edit is particularly interesting since it comes from Special:Contributions/Marshall77, who managed to get themselves blocked after adding material to that article (Doug Chapman (American football)) that was rev-deleted. It also highlights another reason for a block, assuming SinclairCEO doesn't know what to do to edit the article, they may go inactive since the article has been semi-protected. But the history with Marshall77 suggests it will be re-activated once protection expires. BTW, while I assume looking at the rev-deleted material will probably be enough to prove whoever is behind this is up to no good, see [83] [84] if there are any doubts. Incidentally, I think we can be sure that the editor is trying to imply some connection with Sinclair Broadcast Group which doesn't exist so it's also a username violation. Yes, I'm sure they'll be back, but with more blocks, it will hopefully be easier to deal with e.g. simply reported to AIV. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed to at least one previous vandal and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Toddstarnes3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Editor has threatened to sue those editing the article about him previously, and again repeatedly today, see dif. Obviously he is frustrated and I have attempted to explain alternative options dif, but he has not responded to the WP:NLT warning made in November, nor previously responded to COI concerns, and other accounts User:Toddstarnes and User:TPDNYC were blocked by Donald Albury as socks. Melcous (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think this really is Todd Starnes making the edits? Hard to prove I know. If true, then WP:AUTO would apply.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One of Starnes's books is entitled They Popped My Hood and Found Gravy on the Dipstick, so AUTO definitely applies. EEng 13:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter whether it is Starnes or not. Whoever it is the legal threats are grounds for a block unless and until they are withdrawn unequivocally. This doesn't mean that we should ignore them, but simply that anyone has to choose between being able to edit Wikipedia and making such threats. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The legal threats are unambiguous and the user has continued to make them after being warned. I have duly blocked the account. Yunshui 雲水 10:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction problem

    GlottalStop777 (talk · contribs) has been posting to my talk page (User talk:Donald Albury#Nahuatl) in a somewhat disrespectful manner, and I do not understand what they are complaining about. There may be a competency issue involved. Can someone help me sort this out? I will notify the editor of this discussion. - Donald Albury 16:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GlottalStop777: Please provide an explanation for your edits on User talk:Donald Albury. Have you ever edited with a different nick?-- Deepfriedokra 16:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (GlottalStop777; Donald Albury reversed the correction I made, and said he didn't do it. He needs to be kicked from the admin job tbh.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by GlottalStop777 (talk • contribs)
    @GlottalStop777: Please sign your posts so we know who we are talking to. Also, see my comment below. Did you previously use the PhoenixSummon account? --Jayron32 16:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he may be the same user as PhoenixSummon, who you reverted here on Talk:Nahuatl. The PhoenixSummon account stopped editing shortly before the GlottalStop777 account started. --Jayron32 16:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Given some of the editing idiosyncrasies and rude behavior that is common to both accounts, this seems like a WP:DUCK situation. --Kinu t/c 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes. That edit looked like a newbie test, except the editor had a bit of history. I see that just previous to that he made an edit to Nahuatl that I looked hard at, but decided to let pass because I am not an expert on IPA, nor on the pronunciation of Nahuatl. Thanks everyone for checking this out. - Donald Albury 17:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald also reverted a "whom" to "who" error in May. I'm about to block for disruption.-- Deepfriedokra 16:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    GlottalStop777 (talk · contribs) , whatever your problem is, do please read WP:CIVIL.-- Deepfriedokra 16:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nahuatl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)-- Deepfriedokra 16:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted this attempt at forum shopping. Clearly this editor has an axe to grind with Donald for whatever reason, despite there being no evidence of interaction prior to today. A block seems appropriate here. --Kinu t/c 16:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked GS following This edit to my talkFeel free to unblock if you feel I acted inappropriately.-- Deepfriedokra 17:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we need a check user to make this all neat and tidy, or is this tidy enough?-- Deepfriedokra 17:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block, for the record. He was quickly becoming a time-sink and I don't see any reason to entertain him anymore. I think there's ample evidence this is not GlottalStop777's first account; we may need to sort this out. --Jayron32 17:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not GlottalStop777 is a sockpuppet or not doesn't really come into it when it comes to this block, because the editor is clearly a troll. If wider sockpuppetry is suspected then a checkuser might be needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HunterTubeHD85960

    Socks blocked. This is a vandal that shows up intermittently to add hoaxes, mostly to films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @HunterTubeHD85960: has incessantly vandalized the article Rumble (2021 film). Adding unsourced and fabricated castings and reverts whenever anyone fixes it. User clearly doesn’t exist to be helpful. Rusted AutoParts 17:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Trivialist: can attest to this. Rusted AutoParts 17:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rusted AutoParts: Can you describe the results of your prior discussions with HunterTubeHD regarding this issue? What did they say or do when you brought these issues up with them, expressed your concerns to them, or asked them to explain their editing? --Jayron32 18:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dif's would be helpful.-- Deepfriedokra 19:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    here’s the edit history of the article. I suspect the editor is also the IP making the same edits/reversions. This specific edit summary is where I ask Hunter/the ip to source these edits and neither have done so, just continuously reinserting without offering any source. Rusted AutoParts 19:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7 reported by 107.77.227.107

    Moved from WP:AIV
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – This user has been making questionable unexplained changes to Abby Hatcher for months. Because the user's IP changes a lot, a range block may be needed. 107.77.227.107 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. I don't see where the edits in question are vandalism. It mostly looks like innocuous wording changes and a few minor additions. I don't see bad faith anywhere in the two edits made by that IP, or why they even needed to be reverted. Jayron32 18:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has repeatedly state that Sparkles is a Fuzzly, but Sparkles is never referred to as a Fuzzly in the show. The user also keeps describing Grumbles as "monster", but a monster does not have a definite appearance. I fear he/she will just keep adding these without explanation. In fact the user doesn't seem to explain his/her edits. 107.77.227.107 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this is not vandalism. Vandalism does NOT mean "Something I disagree with". This is a disagreement between you and them over a few wording changes and what those words mean. Have you tried starting a discussion on the article talk pages to explain why you disagree with their changes? What were your prior attempts to reach out to this person? --Jayron32 19:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7/64 may be interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence of bad-faith editing there. A few minor tweaks here and there, the kind of stuff thousands of people do every day. Can you post some diffs of actual bad-faith editing in that /64 range? --Jayron32 19:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What this article could use is sources, rather than fights over a fictional race of animals on a kid's show that a five year-old and a 40 year-old parent will never care to learn the specifics about. I see plenty of sources literally nobody outside of the kidvid cruft community cares about regarding episode premiere ratings...I see nothing about the actual show's characters, but I see lots of long writing about each character that would make for a good lullaby (they all need severe editing). This has all the makings of a lame edit war. Nate • (chatter) 01:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    InedibleHulk's signature

    InedibleHulk seems to be a competent editor and it feels like overkill to bring this here, but despite repeated pleas by several users to fix their signature, they have refused. Hulk's signature is in violation of WP:SIGAPP, specifically the bold first line which reads: Your signature must not blink, scroll, or otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors (emphasis mine). Hulk's signature formats the timestamp in a manner that bots do not recognize, and therefore prevents or otherwise interferes with the activities of archive bots. It is also incompatible with user scripts like Unclutter. The weird part of this is that Hulk seems to understand and acknowledge that their signature is a violation of unambiguous policy, but does not seem to care.

    I want to be clear that I am here as a last resort, and harbor no resentment toward Hulk. I'm honestly just baffled that this is the hill that they have decided to die on. WMSR (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @WMSR: Have you got any specific examples of how—for instance—their signature may prevent a bot from archiving a thread no matter how many times the bot passes by? ——SN54129 21:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Signature example:
    InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
    — xaosflux Talk 21:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't take a lot of weight in the "bots don't like it" part - sure they don't but that's not really a big deal. Causing "what links here" linkbacks from articles on every single signing though is a bit much. — xaosflux Talk 21:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, perhaps. Bots and their lack of feelings are of no interest to anyone. But when humans—whether editor or reader are potentially inconvenienced, then yes, I think there's an issue. For example, as RedRose64 pointed out over six months ago, a thread was not archived for ten days because of the (lack of) timestamp. If accidental, it wouldn't be a problem; but since mens rea has been established, it certainly comes within the realm of WP:DE. More to the point, the length of time over which the issue has been raised multiplied by the number of times it has been (?) laughed off indicates that some—I don't attempt to understand what—kind of point is being made.
    In any case, the bottom line is that, after so many fruitless attempts at resolution met with (at best) levity, this complaint was unfortunately overdue here. ——SN54129 21:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (@Closing admin: This comment can be read as a Require standard date/time (aka prohibit) opinion per the discussion below. ——SN54129 14:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Enough people have complained about this to mean that this editor should either change the signature immediately to something that resolves the complaints or revert to the standard signature. This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site where such personal preferences that get in the way of other people's work is indulged. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's put "enough people" to the test. How many editors are annoyed or inconvenienced by the signature? Petition subsections below. – Levivich 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, let's not. This is a very simple matter of someone who has a signature that causes some people annoyance, and refuses to change it the light of that. Creating battelefield-style voting sections just makes this, well, a battlefield. Why on Earth do we allow silly childish custom signatures anyway? As I said, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil, I hate your signature. I hate everyone's signature that is not customized. Why? Because it's difficult to tell the difference (at least for me) between a "plain" signature and some other kind of wikilink. Signatures that are colorful and pop are better than plain signatures because they (1) allow you to quickly identify one comment from another, (2) allow you to quickly identify who is speaking, (3) don't get confused for a regular link, and (4) are pretty and interesting and sometimes funny. "Not a social networking site" has nothing to do with it. (And that tired, tired slogan needs to be retired permanently. We are, in fact, a social networking site, a collaborative encyclopedia project where socializing and networking are required and happen every day among thousands of people.) As with all things, opinions on signatures vary. Of course, that doesn't mean that you should have to change your signature just because I personally don't like it. To me, it really does matter whether it's 3 editors who are annoyed, or 30, or 300. Because you'll find 30 editors annoyed about anything. Hell, 300 are annoyed by me, and I'm still here! :-D PS: It's not a battlefield, it's a straw poll. Instead of arguing over whether "a lot" of editors are bothered, or just "a few" or "some", let's just have a show of hands and see how many think this is a problem that needs to be addressed. – Levivich 22:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Augh, I have to agree with Levivich here at some level (not re: Phil B.'s signature, because he has a reason that makes sense to him and that's a contraindication to "hate" in JDL-world). I had this argument with my business partner because even IRL I use green Century Schoolbook in my email and signature thereof, unlike anyone else in my small business. Why? Because that way I can spot my own content in a thread. Freaking SCOTUS uses Century Schoolbook and that's enough of a respectability endorsement for me. And my favorite color is green. I'm 48 and hate cyber-gewgaws as much as anybody but I convinced the highly non-convince-able Business Partner that I had a rationale and it improved my efficiency. I'm just sayin'. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree about the backlinks being a problem, Xaos. There are already thousands upon thousands of backlinks to January 3 already, including thousands just in User: space alone (nevermind talk pages and mainspace). Same with January 2, and 2020, and 2019. How many pages does Hulk sign each day? A few... less than 10? Hulk is adding less than 0.1% to the backlinks. Even over the course of all of 2019, I bet it's less than 1%. The "backlink spam" is negligible. I wonder if there's a tool to verify this. – Levivich 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the point in having a sig's day and year link to mainspace; if it is causing issues with useful bots, then I'd agree that it violates WP:SIGAPP and should be changed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the worst it does is, as mentioned above, delay an archive bot from archiving for a few extra days, I don't think that's a problem. If there are other, more serious, problems caused, then it might be a problem. Just my two cents. – Levivich 22:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes there are several problems. As someone who is from a different time zone, his signature makes it impossible to understand the chronology of the comments. I have had chance to work with him on discussions about a couple of controversial pages and following those ungodly timestamp in a threaded discussion on a talk page is an absolute nightmare. I had also asked him to change this but it seems he has become a pro in deflecting requests to change his sign. This ANI was destined to happen. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Inedibility resounds around. "Chopped heart and lungs boiled in a wee sheep's stomach! Tastes as good as it sounds!" ——SN54129 22:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Editors who think InedibleHulk's signature is annoying or inconvenient
    Editors who may think InedibleHulk is annoying or inconvenient for some reason (e.g., being inedible), but not because of his signature
    1. – Levivich 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
    Editors who looked, shook their heads, and went fishin'
    1. -- Deepfriedokra 22:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Actually my own signature gives mild (-ish) electric shocks. Why not? darwin bish 22:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    To be clear, I didn't decide to die on this hill. If it happens, it happens. But I've never once started these polite disagreements. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
    So which hill did you decide on, then? Victims' names? Retirement of the intercontinental belt? – Levivich 23:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that valley between those things? Bury me there. Next to the hamulet. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, January 3, 2020 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I use a script that translates the UTC timestamps to local time and formats it for display the way I want. It doesn't work on IH's sigs though. It seems anti-social and non-collegial of them to do this unless there's a really good reason. I could write a custom handler for IH's format, but what about the next one? Wouldn't it be easier for IH to use a custom script that converted everyone else's sig to their desired format instead? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have Javascript enabled, so if that's part of the deal, it's easier for you to adjust things on your end. Don't worry about the next one, I've only seen one other guy do it Hulk-style here in seven years. I'm a dying breed. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    It's not even just random editor's custom's scripts. The Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time gadget fails with it too. That said, while now that I'm paying attention, I do find this disruptive and not because of the effect on timestamp interpreting scripts, however I have to be honest I either never noticed this before or did but didn't think much of it despite regularly seeing InedibleHulk in places. Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean someone else changed your signature for you? I think we may need to block your account as compromised..... Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you're not kidding, I mean I've consistently decided to go on living with this annoying problem. It's the nice normal people who want to see me fry for this. Can't really fault them for it, though, I tricked a poor gadget. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    Actually you don't have to go on living with this annoying problem. You can still change your signature back thereby resolving the problem you did not create because you evidently did not change your signature even though your account was never compromised. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • InedibleHulk, I doubt people here want to see you fry for this. People here just want to focus on discussions to improve the article on talk pages without getting annoyed by ungodly timestamps. It was brought here to be fixed, only because you could not be bothered to fix this annoying problem. Apparently you believe this is something worth dying for. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prohibit "otherwise cause inconvenience to or annoy other editors". Altering the format of the timestamp inconveniences and annoys other users directly, and less directly by causing scripts and bots to malfunction. It does not usefully distinguish the user in the sense Levivich would like. I would go so far as to say that any user probably should not alter, format or cause any links in the timestamp portion of the sig but I would have to see more examples. Timestamps are part of the cooperative operation of the talk pages and I would say, like indenting/threads and not interleaving comments, they are just part of "how it works" and should not be optional. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prohibit if Levi really wants a straw poll, then I guess he shall have one. We certainly couldn't just fix an obvious problem and move on with minimum disruption. No sir, that wouldn't be the Wikipedia way. Inedible's signature is causing problems with archiving. They need to fix it. (And the extra back links are, at best, a potentially-disruptive nuisance). I don't buy Inedible's 'Golly gee, I'm not sure it's such a big deal' attitude. Stop stalling and fix your mess. And yes, you have chosen this hill to die on. Bully for you that you never started any of these polite disagreements (the same ones that keep arising because you can't be bothered to fix your signature). You want a cookie or something? Sheesh. Lepricavark (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep your cookie, but if you're feeling generous, just don't call me "they". It's annoying. You know I'm a guy by my name. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    Trust me, I could think of quite a few other things to call you. Lepricavark (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From the way you wrote that, I get the feeling we've met. If it's any consolation, I'm probably sorry for how things went. Cheers to new beginnings? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    You expressed annoyance at my adherence to increasingly-standard pronoun usage (no, your username does not make it 100% clear that you are male) in a thread that was caused by your refusal to change an annoying and decidedly non-standard signature. Hence my snarky reply. No, I'm not aware of any prior history nor do I bear you any personal ill will. I just think it's very silly of you to refuse to change your signature after the problems with it have been explained clearly and repeatedly. Lepricavark (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think it's silly of people to keep bothering me about changing it. That's the real time-killer. From day one, I was clearly not interested, and repeatedly suggested quickly looking elsewhere if they see something vaguely disturbing but harmless in the future. But yeah, personally, I don't dislike you. Good luck with forgetting about this, seriously! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    It's not harmless. That's the whole point. But it sounds like you either can or won't understand that your signature is a problem. Or do you understand and just can't be bothered to fix it. But you can be bothered to try to spin this to make it seem like everyone else is the problem, not you. Lepricavark (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking your name could be seen as a reference to She-Hulk as well. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI to anyone, if you have navigation popups gadget enabled, mousing over a sig will show the user's gender if they set one in their own preferences (there's a note in prefs telling you it will be public). It's very helpful. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @InedibleHulk: How about a compromise? You can accomplish the MDY re-formatting of everyone's timestamps (not just your own) without scripting at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Do you really need the date linked? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean I should check the appropriate box under Date Format, I tried. It's still checked, 77 months later. Does nothing. Is my gender flag working? Yes, I really need the date linked. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    That setting changes the way dates are displayed in history pages, not in others' signatures. WMSR (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Works great, in that case. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    Re: prefs, my mistake. I agree the amount of time spent on signature issues is unreasonable. The platform should handle this stuff in a user-proof way. Not that I agree with this user's disruption to make the point. Require standard timestamp. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time gadget let's you set whatever date format you want. Of course it will also adjust the time to match your local time. And currently I don't think there is any way to stop this other than by changing your browser so it reports your timezone as UTC, but you could try asking the gadget designer on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Comments in Local Time. Turning off the local time thing goes against the purpose of the gadget, but there could be reason why an editor would want to manually set a time zone rather than follow their browser. It does some other things by default, like add the number of days and uses a non 24 hour clock, but these can be turned off. I've been using it for a very long time and it seems to nearly always work in default mode so I assume will also work for adjust the date format. Of course, it will fail with InedibleHulk's time stamp as I outlined above. Also it would require you to enable JavaScript Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    InedibleHulk has now updated his gender in Preferences, putting an end to this off-topic discussion

    Maybe more to the point, I'm unconvinced someone being a fan of Incredible Hulk and name themselves after them means they must be male, especially since there's nothing male about either component of the name. I mean if a woman was a fan of Superman or Spiderman, maybe they're unlikely to call themselves Spiderman or Superman (although even that I'm unconvinced). But if someone is a fan of The Flash? I generally avoid assuming someone is male or female, even if there is some component of their pseudonym which may suggest someone is male or female just because you never know if there is some other reason for their choice. Yes, this includes stuff like Alan, John, girl. In fact in this very thread, there is someone with Juliet in their name which since I am slightly familiar with the NATO phonetic alphabet, I'm guessing may not necessarily indicate they are female. If someone asks me to refer to them by a specific pronoun I will try to remember that so I can respect it, but otherwise, I feel it's fine to just not worry about it and use a gender neutral pronoun since with most discussions it doesn't particularly matter what gender the person is and it's probably better to not know to avoid it influencing you. (Although it is hard to put aside your implicit biases even if you're able to word your reply without assumptions.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've graced us with 238 words on the merits of You know I'm a guy by my name. Are we really going to debate that here? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to uncollapse the discussion, but I strongly disagree. InedibleHulk, not me, is the one who claimed people should be aware of their gender from their name. I strongly disagree, and find it disgusting that I am not entitled to challenge an editor on the incredibly offensive suggestion that I am required to make assumptions on someone's gender by their name. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne please accept my apologies, if the collapsing offended you. Whoever started it, this is still a side discussion "already resolved". So I request you to channel your efforts on the main topic. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) I admit when I made my reply, I missed that Lepricavark had already challenged InedibleHulk on their claim that InedibleHulk implies they must be male point blank (i.e. without the she-hulk part). Now I see Lepricavark did, I'm less concerned. Still I stand by the merits of my comment in making it clear to InedibleHulk why their statement was unwarranted, in fact offensive. And making it here, on ANI, where that statement was made. Again, it's perfectly fine for editors to tell an editor what their gender is, or to ask to be referred by a specific pronoun, but that doesn't mean editors should be required to make assumptions. Likewise, with the gadget, while there's nothing wrong with it, and some editors may wish to use it, there's also nothing wrong with editors not wishing to know by default and so not using it. Note that if editors felt the whole gender pronoun thing was off-topic and had collapsed the whole thing, I don't see why note. By I stand by my view there is no reason why my comment pointing out the harm of expecting editors to make assumptions about gender had to be collapsed in particular. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard date/time (aka prohibit). I agree individuality is good. However, correctly formatted timestamps are currently the only way the end of a comment can be determined by a bot. One day bots will be smarter but meanwhile the archiving and reply-to issues mean a standard timestamp is highly desirable. Given that the only reason to not have a standard timestamp is to express displeasure against the mindless mob, the signature should be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about writing my dates like a regular North American mob member, nice and forward-like. And subtly exposing the past, one day at a time. Mindless masses are cool, in my books. Remember Automatic for the People? Word is buddy's sixty today, pass it on. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure all these people understand. It's not like years ago. – Levivich 07:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have got this rebellion thing topsy-turvy. Such a trivial matter as making your signature conform to expectations is simply stubbornness, not rebellion, and making quotes about some bore-rock band that filled stadiums and tens of millions of other people follow is about as far from rebellion as you can get. And oh to be sixty again. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger: This is a thing of truth. They were completely tedious post 1987. Or possibly even '86, I can't remember now. ——SN54129 19:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp, as nominator. WMSR (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp, (aka prohibit other type of timestamps). These standard timestamps are there for a very good reason and are there not just for bots. Timestamps help to understand the chronology in a threaded discussion. As I mentioned in my comment above his signature makes it harder for anyone, who is not in the same timezone as his, to decipher when he made that comment. This is a major inconvenience and an impediment to discussion on talk pages. His reasons for keeping it hardly holds weight. FWIW, Cookies for changing it have already been given. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp. I'm not hugely fussed about the archive bots, but if the non-standard timestamp prevents proper reformatting for those users who want timestamps displayed in their local time rather than UTC, then that's a significant inconvenience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp. The current timestamp adversely affects or completely defeats a number of widely-used tools, and the counter-argument is entirely uncompelling. I, Hulk, and others have previously commented at length at Hulk's UTP, if anyone is interested in reading further. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp, regretfully. I wish there was a better way to do it, but there is too much value in having a standardized timestamp for all the reasons listed above, and too little reason why anyone would need to replace it. That said, rather than focusing on one editor, we might want to consider a larger RFC to update WP:SIGAPP and make it unambiguous that signatures must contain a standardized timestamp. The purpose of talk pages is communication, which is best-served by ensuring timestamps are easily accessible to tools, bots, and so on. There's plenty of other ways people can customize their signature without impairing that functionality. --Aquillion (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I would oppose an update to SIGAPP per WP:CREEP. We know of only one active user using a non-standard timestamp, and there is ample evidence that he would have dismissed any such requirement as "silly". For any other user, I believe that the arguments against, the ongoing parade of complaints, and the fact that they are alone in using a nonstandard timestamp will continue to be sufficient. Wait until there is a demonstrated need. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my assessment, this is straightforward WP:POINT disruption. The actual issues are petty ones, sure. Relatively minor in the grand scheme of the universe, sure. But they are real. The simple situation of having minor issues and complaints repeatedly brought to your attention and refusing to resolve them, for no real reason whatsoever, is the equivalent of trolling. Per WP:CIR and WP:COMMUNICATE, responding amicably to simple and straightforward issues without causing drama is an utterly base expectation the community holds. Refusing to do so is disruptive editing. The fact that it’s ‘not a big deal’ is not a caveat to any of this. There are no vested contributors. Petty pot stirring and boundary pushing is not a big deal, but that doesn’t mean we should or will tolerate it. Per these community norms, and per the above, I intend to block the user if they continue to refuse to resolve this minor issue, until which point they resolve it. The fact that they essentially say “I’m not choosing to die on this hill but I will” indicates to me that they prioritize petty disruption over the smooth running of the project. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp - There should no real reason to ever wikilink timestamps, Also via Preferences all dates for me are set to DMY so currently IncredibleHulks talkpage is a mishmash of both which bugs the hell out of me. –Davey2010Talk 10:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp let's just end this shit. This thread has seriously gone off the rails when editors are prevented from challenging others on their incredibly offensive suggestions. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Collapsing off-topic discussion is not sending a thread off the rails, rather quite the opposite. This discussion is not about that, "incredibly offensive" or otherwise. But given Swarm's stated intent to block until the sig is changed to use the standard timestamp, this thread seems eminently closable to me, and that would "end this shit". ―Mandruss ☎ 11:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If the discussion was off-topic, then the whole fucking thing was off-topic. Not part of it. And so is this fucking aside. The fact remains, my comment was incredibly on-topic, to the claim made here, in this thread by another editor that I found unwarranted, or even offensive. It was largely apart from the main discussion, and before it was collapsed, there was zero reason why it would ever come into this discussion. If InedibleHulk wanted to challenge me, that is their right, and I see no harm in them doing so. I probably would not reply, since I generally do my best to say all I need to say and leave it be, hence the long comments. Sometimes unexpected things do come up, like happened here. In this case, that was because my right to reply to a comment I found unwarranted was challenged so I did reply further but this didn't come from InedibleHulk. But mostly I find it best to leave a lengthy reply and avoid getting draw into long back and forths. Suffice it to say, I remain unconvinced there was a reason to selective collapse my reply. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp ~ it's absolutely ridiculous that someone who wants to be part of the community (participating in this great project) is unwilling to abide by the simplest and most innocuous of the community's requests, but rather seems to go out of his way to purposely antagonise it. Not at all collegial. Happy days, LindsayHello 12:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp – this is incredibly POINTy behaviour. InedibleHulk has been repeatedly told his signature is causing problems and has refused to change it, for no good reason. P-K3 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prohibit (require standard timestamp) and support for Swarm's proposal. Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp per Swarm. The long-term refusal to follow requirements is disruptive and a time-sink for those who encounter it. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp This is perhaps the most pointless WP:POINT disruption I've seen. It's a waste of everyone's time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Require standard timestamp It breaks archiving. End of. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let it be The main source of disruption is clearly the complaining, not the lack of stamp. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    @InedibleHulk: Please review my above comments, it explains why your refusal to fix something you feel is a non-issue is in itself disruptive, lays out the underlying community rules and norms, and rationalizes a discretionary block purely based on that alone. Note also that we operate by consensus, and, while you have the right to your opinion and it has been noted for the record, there's a clear consensus that your signature is disruptive on its own merits and is to be changed. You can disagree all you want, but you cannot reject it. Refusal to accept a consensus is yet another layer of WP:POINT disruption. Additionally, we can and will issue blocks to enforce consensus when needed. No one wants to see you blocked, but truthfully you and only you are going to force our hand here. This is, again, a really bizarre thing to be forcing a block over this, but at this point, it is quite simply the next step. If not because you agree, if not for fear of a block, please at least respect the consensus here and fix your sig. Take all the time you need to mull it over, but continuing to post your unchanged sig, or continuing to edit without confirming that you have resolved the issue will be interpreted as a refusal. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to block me for using the signature I've used since 2013, that would be the biggest disruption ever associated with it. I won't let you. I'll stop using it (after responding to questions at this needless clusterfuck, I mean). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
    • Require standard timestamp to enforce a minimum requirement of accessibility. I'd just disable "fancy" signatures wiki-wide, but that probably goes too far for most users' liking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advise standard timestamp Consensus is rare - and we seem to have something close to a consensus. That should be an eye opener for the Hulk. I am generally a freedom junky, but I can sort of agree with Swarm in saying we have some minimum standards. I am just not sure we need to threaten the editor with draconian blocks over a signature. Perhaps an RfC? ANI is rarely the place for issues that are not straight up disruption to the encyclopedia. Wm335td (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    General signature timestamp guideline change

    The discussion above is currently trending towards a general discussion about signature timestamps - to not fork this discussion, perhaps we can continue below on a guideline change to Wikipedia:Signatures? It currently reads: All signature timestamps must end with the trailing "(UTC)". This is mandatory and required by archiving bots for them to function correctly. Signatures that interfere with the archiving bots are considered disruptive and editors may be blocked for it. but perhaps should be strengthened to:

    Signatures should not include customization to the format of timestamps. All timestamps should adhere to the normally system generated format, ending with the trailing "(UTC)". This is necessary for clear communications, and for archiving bots to function correctly. Signatures that interfere with the archiving bots may be considered disruptive and editors may be blocked for it.

    Thoughts? — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Better to fix the bots to accommodate the humans than the other way around. I hope everyone realizes from a technical point of view how utterly ridiculous this is. Bots should recognize signatures by the use of some kind of signature flag that the four tildes should insert, rather than by looking for a particular string. Bots should be smart enough to read mdy or dmy with or without wikilinks. It’s embarrassing that something as simple as linking the time stamp should break a bunch of bots and scripts. Think about it folks: WMF brings in $100 million a year but our software breaks if someone wikilinks the time stamp. In the year 2020, we have cars that drive themselves and robots on Mars, but Wikipedia, 5th largest website, can’t handle this. – Levivich 15:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Accommodate which humans besides InedibleHulk? Who else is doing this? Who else knows how to do this? Of them, who wants to do this? To get the standard timestamp, one has to do nothing at all, and nothing at all is never an unreasonable burden. You might as well argue that users should be able to define the character to use in place of the tilde when they sign, so that the software accommodates the humans instead of the other way around. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, the WMF has nothing to do with self-driving cars and robots on Mars. Why would the technological capacities of other organizations be relevant to our own? Besides, those things have far more practical utility than these wikilinked timestamps. What's the point of investing resources to enable us to do something that doesn't need to be done? Lepricavark (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark, hahaha investing resources to enable us to do something that doesn't need to be done is exactly what is happening here right now. With $100 million a year, you’d think we could get some normal software, but nooo lets tear each other apart instead. Good plan. – Levivich 20:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was your idea to have a straw poll. Well, you got one. Lepricavark (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no objection to this, but it's likely neither necessary, as we aren't seeing multiple issues, nor productive, as it seems IH has dug in his heels on this for some reason. InedibleHulk, please just rise above whatever first made you think, "You can't make me" the first time someone brought this up and to dig those heels in deeper and deeper each time someone complained, until now this feels to you like an issue of principle in which you simply must triumph in the name of all independent thinkers everywhere. It's not an issue of principle. It's just plain not important. It's a small decision you made years ago that isn't in any way symbolic of your individual rights. You don't 'lose' if you decide to change. --valereee (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposed changes. Levivich, Please read my comments above, sometimes, as in this case, it is the human that needs "fixing". Nothing wrong with the bots or WMF software. User:Xaosflux is trying to make sure that in future, any more such issues can be swiftly dealt with, without wasting a lot of community time, as we are doing in this thread and IH's talk page for this issue. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Rather than spending our time making a new rule for humans to follow, a better use of time would be changing the rules that bots follow (their code). – Levivich 15:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Lets agree that we differ in our opinions. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:SIG is also a "guideline", this is mostly looking to update it to reflect the current expectations, if that is what they are. — xaosflux Talk 15:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mild Support Any smart-arse who really wanted to get around that original wording could easily do so, and be totally smug about it, and waste lots of people's time trying to deal with the problem they'd caused. But would anyone really be so small-minded and POINTy to actually do that, or not change it when asked? It's a shame we think we might need to modify otherwise quite clear wording just because they might try! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per WP:CREEP. We know of only one active user using a non-standard timestamp, and there is ample evidence that he would have dismissed any such requirement as "silly". Wait until there is a demonstrated need. Anyway, it takes quite a bit of imagination and technical insight to even figure out how to change one's timestamp. As I understand it, you have to (1) code a nonstandard timestamp in your signature definition, using the appropriate "magic words", and (2) always sign with three tildes to prevent the system from adding the standard timestamp. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose per Mandruss and valereee. We shouldn't change our policy because one person wants to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. This whole thing is just absurd and the solution is to sign with 4 tildes if you're going to sign at all. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mandruss, Wugapodes, Thanks for the thoughts. What makes you feel so optimistic that we may not have more such folks in future. In fact this is a case that was brought to notice, there may be folks already tweaking their timestamps when they clearly shouldn't. Instead of repeating this entire time wasting process once again from the scratch, I would prefer, we put this clearly in black and white, so that folks planning to test the tolerance limits for the community can be discouraged. Finally WP:SIG is a "guideline". DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, wait until there is a demonstrated need. Act based on what we know, not on what might be. In any case, even the policy part of SIG, SIGAPP, has never been strictly enforced anyway (if it had been, the issue of Hulk's timestamp wouldn't have persisted for years). If you examine the arguments in this discussion that oppose Hulk's timestamp, they generally don't refer to the policy itself but rather to the breakage of tools and the ongoing editor complaints. So the policy itself is fairly beside the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you feel so optimistic that we may not have more such folks in future WP:AGF mostly. Between the existing guidance and WP:POINT, our guidance sufficiently describe how to not be disruptive with your signature. Even if someone doesn't understand and has a disruptive signature, if they really are editing in good faith and here to build an encyclopedia, when asked, they should stop. The only reason we are having this discussion is because asking the editor on their talk page didn't work. Changing our policies essays of various levels of consensus to address someone intentionally trying to game the system isn't going to help anything; people who want to test the tolerance limits of the community will do so no matter what, and honestly of all the ways someone can do that with their signature, modifying the timestamp is one of the harder ones. (edit conflict) Ŵ̴̬̆̌̕̚û̶̘͌̀͊g̴̡͚̦̒̋ͅà̵̤̰̂̚ͅp̷̳̺͓̻̀ò̸̧͉͋̓ͅd̶̬̥̥͑̄̉ͅȩ̷̲̺̰̓ś̷̥̋͝ 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Austhistory99

    The author user:Austhistory99 (self declared COI) of this hatchet job on author Bruce Pascoe has been contributing to both his bio article and the article for his book Dark Emu - considering the tone of his website Dark Emu Exposed, I believe this goes beyond a COI. Austhistory99 has now published a copy of Pascoe's book the articles talk page, the book is popular and contemporary, currently in publication and published under copyright - offering the text in full is a blatant copyright violation. Given the editors self admitted authorship of an attack page that describes the articles subject as "Chairman Pascoe" and "Emperor Pascoe" among other slurs and their recent copyright violation/disregard for the subjects intellectual property. I believe this editor has a demonstrable and serious issue with the articles subject and should be topic banned from all articles relating to Bruce Pascoe. Bacondrum (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever else, I agree that linking to the full book is a violation of WP:COPYVIOEL. While WP:REX and other methods can be used to exchange resources to help editors, a general link to the full book in the talk page is way too far. The editor should be blocked if they do this again. Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. I want to point out that the copyright that was violated regarding Dark Emu belongs to the BLP article's subject Bruce Pascoe making this a particularly troubling case of copyright violation. Considering the editor runs a page dedicated to defaming Pascoe and discrediting his book, it seems inconceivable that he did not know it was a copyright violation. Bacondrum (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Page blanking by User:Wisegrandaugher

    Both accounts blocked as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A new user keeps blanking and renaming a page titled Finkenberg's Sons Furniture. As a different user, User:New York Historian 1870, had removed an AfD tag and blanked the page, I'm at two reversions and I don't want to edit war by hitting three reverts. Can somebody look into this situation to see what's going on? The user also moved the page to Administrator please delete this article. Hog Farm (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really know what's going on either. But I speedy deleted the redirect as a test page, moved the article back, and move-protected it. I also left a note on Wisegrandaugher's talk page that I hope will resolve some of her concerns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:New Year Eve's Burger

    Talk page access revoked by User:EvergreenFir. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 04:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This blocked vandalism-only account is abusing its talk page with unblock requests. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 03:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:TM2042

    Repeat vandalism by TM2042 on Blair Cottrell repeatedly adding unfounded/uncited claims including accusations of (Redacted). Blatant vandalism. Bacondrum (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. But please read the large banner that appears whenever you edit this page: If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Weeb Dingle pretending to be new with a different account

    Weeb Dingle (talk · contribs) is an editor whose editing I and others have had issues with; for example, see this and this ANI thread on him, and this post by me on his talk page. I noticed his Nkofa (talk · contribs) account at Talk:Polyamory. By looking at Nkofa's very early contributions, I knew that the editor wasn't new (for example, immediately creating a user page, which is a rare thing for newbies to do and is very characteristic of socks because they want to immediately blend in by having a blue user page). As seen here, I went to Nkofa's talk page and asked him about his previous account(s). He ignored my query and continued editing. I looked at his latest editing and recognized him as Weeb Dingle when I saw him at Talk:Guitar synthesizer. A topic like that is one of Weeb Dingle's interests. I felt that it was too much of a coincidence to see both accounts at Polyamory and interested in a topic like that. I then examined Nkofa's edit summaries -- such as "nonsequitur," "reduced superlatives; updated tenses" and "tone generally neutralised" -- and saw that they are edit summaries that Weeb Dingle uses. After seeing all of that, I had no doubt about Nkofa being Weeb Dingle. As also seen on Nkofa's talk page, I gave him a chance to come clean as Weeb Dingle. He did not. Berean Hunter, a CheckUser, later confirmed them as being the same person.

    My issue (like I stated on the Nkofa talk page) with this is the following: Weeb Dingle presents himself as new on the Nkofa user page, stating, "I am not certain what I am doing yet so I hope that people can be patient with me. [...] This is my first day here and I have not yet found a one-click way to insert a date so let me just say it is 22 December 2019." Contrary to what WP:Clean start states, he continued editing in the same areas. It is deceptive because he is not new and others will believe that he is a new editor (as evidenced by the Welcome template on his talk page) editing these same areas when he is Weeb Dingle. Am I to just pretend that I don't know who he is? I didn't want to, especially given my issues with his editing. I think he changed to Nkofa to avoid scrutiny. And WP:SCRUTINY is clear. If an editor wants to change their name, they can change their name. But he pretended to be new. So what should be done in this case? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor seemed to imply they were taking this to ANI [85], but then didn't. I've told them that at a minimum, they need to ensure the connection between the accounts is clearly declared. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    PAustin4thApril1980 Reported by Alcibiades979 for Racism

    This deals with the page 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike. This page has been slightly contentious due to the event. That being said, user PAustin4thApril1980 suggested red flagging user and Wiki Administrator Mhhossein talk due to his ethnicity, Persian, saying that this makes him "sympathetic to the mullahs." I'm not Persian, I'm Colombian, but I have friends who are Persian and I find racism such as this to be absolutely disgusting.

    Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Baghdad_International_Airport_airstrike&diff=934047198&oldid=934040945

    Notification to user: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PAustin4thApril1980&diff=934049385&oldid=932660833

    Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Not racism, just saying that giving equal weight to the POV of the Iranian Government is wrong, given it is a theocratic despotism with a thin democratic veneer. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @PAustin4thApril1980: Regardless of whether it's racism, it's a personal attack. If you do it again, you risk being blocked. As an aside, Mhhossein is not an admin at en.wiki but is one at Commons.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, it's pretty much an aspersion; I've hatted the section, but, tbh, if you hadn't have already replied it could have been removed outright. ——SN54129 13:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @PAustin4thApril1980: As an aside, I can tell you that most Iranians from Western countries do not think highly of the Iranian regime, perhaps except the most fanatical of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm a little at a loss as to the fact that if I revert an edit three times I'm banned, but... if I suggest red flagging a user due to being x ethnicity, well we can just cover that up real quick, and move on, shame on whoever replied because then we could've just flat out deleted the whole thing and pretended it didn't happen. It seems to me that maybe priorities are a little misplaced. Edit warring bad, suggesting someone's thoughts and ideas are invalid on a subject due to being Iranian, or Chinese, or Latin or Arab or whatever, then trying to gain consensus to ban them from said topic seems far worse. Racism is racism. It seems to me that on an international site like Wikipedia that should be taken very seriously. But then again, I'm Colombian, so what do I know? Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained, I was upset because I feel NPOV should not mean giving equal time to theocratic despots. It was out of a sense of morality and a desire for justice, not racism. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may help if you clarify what you're referring to. If you revert an edit four times, that's a violation of WP:3RR, and you may receive a short block to stop you from doing it further. You won't be banned though, unless there is something much wider going on. As for this case, well the editor is likely to be blocked if they repeat their statement. And potentially it will be a longer block than a simple, single, first, 3RR violation. AFAICT, the article doesn't come under any WP:discretionary sanctions regime, except maybe BLP and ISIL, and none has been tagged. If it does, and is tagged, and an admin applies 1RR, then reverting 3 times may earn you a block. If you are aware of the discretionary sanctions regime, it could conceivable earn a topic ban, but again, it is very, very, unlikely based solely on you reverting an edit 3 times. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The suggestion to "red flag" someone because of their ethnicity was entirely inappropriate. If we suggest that someone with an Iranian/Persian connection cannot comment at that page, we should also ban American editors from commenting there. They (we) are just as likely to have a bias with regard to this incident - probably more so. IMO no action should be taken here, but PAustin (who BTW is unrepentant and does not seem to understand why their comment was inappropriate) should be formally warned not to make that kind of comment about another editor in the future. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This warrants a block in my opinion. To "redflag" someone as unable to edit Wikipedia based on their ethnicity is unacceptable. This user has a history of claiming non-democracy sources and people are inherently POV, despotic, and otherwise lesser ([86], [87], [88]). Seems that others think a "final warning" would be better, and I think that should be a minimum response here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the range of opinions expressed here, I've chosen to issue an unequivocal final warning to PAustin4thApril1980. I confirm that I'm willing to make an indefinite block should the behaviour recur. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian films at Cannes

    Hi. Please could someone look at this article and confirm that it's the same as the pages deleted multiple times listed here? This goes back at least five years(!) involving the re-creation of the same material by a sockfarm. I thought it had gone for good, but looks like it has returned. If it is the same material, please can it be deleted (sock avoiding a block), along with the category Category:Indian winners at Cannes? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lugnuts, The list is similar between the two articles (not surprising) but there are a number of differences. The more important distinction is that the three introductory paragraphs current article are not tracking closely with the opening paragraphs of the deleted article. Somewhat surprising, but I don't see it as close enough to conclude it's the same editor. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking. I know it's only circumstantial, but I find it hard to believe that this new editor was able to suddenly create this (quite sophisticated) article. Made a handful of edits in Nov19, before lying dormant for about a month. Apart from this page, they also created this article, which was deleted in July 2017, after being re-created by a sock too. I don't know if the existing articles echoes the deleted one, but I'm guessing it does. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent dispute at Croatian Air Force

    After removing an AIV report that seems to have been an outing attempt, I've had a look at the underlying conflict. Diffs such as Special:Diff/934031454, Special:Diff/934032086 and Special:Diff/924187200 seem to indicate a long-term conflict between FOX 52 and at least one IP editor.

    FOX 52, perhaps you could take a moment to explain the situation from your point of view here. The latest escalation at WP:AIV seems to indicate a need for such a discussion, possibly leading to a community ban or block against a user who appears to be attacking you repeatedly. WP:ASPERSIONS seems to be relevant, for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New user without an interest in providing sources

    Appears to be a good faith editor, but has ignored templates and prefers to add content without sources; more specifically, their 'sources' are meaningless. I'd prefer not to edit war and go to a level four warning, so any assistance would be grand. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    edit warring by Human Taxonomist over multiple articles

    We have a problem with USER:Human Taxonomist on these articles

    There may be others and we have a personal attack removing a warning here and the talk page speaks for itself. Looks like a certain spurt around some strongly held issues after a period with very few edits.

    USER:Sirfurboy has rather foolishly edit warred to restore the status quo but I think has stopped

    A voluntary 1RR agreement or a block seem options but its down to the community. I haven't been directly involved other than suggesting a compromise of Welsh people -----Snowded TALK 20:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Flyer22 Reborn

    First, the confession. Until a couple of months ago, I was editing as Weeb Dingle. Sometime around Thanksgiving Day, my laptop crashed. I was able to recover almost everything and to reconnect with all of my online accounts — except for my W'pedia logon, where I'd been relying on the "stay logged in" cookie for months. And fool that I am, the password is one of those "oh this is so clever I'll never forget it" brainfarts. I was not able to find any official way to request assistance with this, I spent hours digging through endless Help pages, and concluded that in that respect I am hosed. Unless there is a way back known by others, or I trip over some handwritten note, the Weeb Dingle account is functionally dead, though I would happily take it up again given the opportunity. I took that as a maybe the Universe is telling you something event and chose to start anew as Nkofa, editing articles and staying out of trouble, in particular avoiding encounters with one particular user. My intent was/is not at all malign, in no way abusing the position of "running multiple accounts." When someone opts to file an official grievance about this, I will move forward gladly.

    But I was tracked down by the sockhunter User:Flyer22 Reborn. That opens up a bunch of issues, which will take explanation. What follows relies almost entirely on my imperfect memory; I did not at any point keep a diary of my grievances.

    Though I readily stand up for what I believe to be right, I have never in life been comfortable appealing to some authority for support, in large part because I find mobbing (bullying by a group) distasteful at best, even when I am entirely certain of my stance. (In like manner, I have shied away from bringing differences over the editing of articles before a group, as I likely ought have done.) Despite many months of probable cause, I disliked even posting here, but I am now comfortable with it.

    Until a decade ago, I was a professional editor. Soon after signing up as a Wikipedia editor, I worked on some article (possibly Romance (love)) for a half-hour, an oddly awkward passage that also struck me as editor-imposed conjecture unsupported by any nearby citation. I fixed the language and marked it up with a couple of templates (which admittedly I was still learning to apply). It was my biggest WP accomplishment to that point, and I did feel a bit proud. Within hours, it was entirely reverted. Knowing that changes of any significance need (supposedly) to be discussed, I checked the Talk page, and found absolutely nothing. This bothered me, because any editor worth the label would (so I assumed) have fixed my missteps and left a helpfully instructive note there or on my own Talk page. There was, though, a comment in the revision history, which basically wagged a finger in my face for doing it wrong. That was how I first encountered User:Flyer22 Reborn.

    My degree work was primarily in human relationships and sexuality; I am both published and well-versed in those topical areas, and this has informed my choices for Wikipedia articles needing oversight. As a result, there were repeated run-ins with User:Flyer22 Reborn, no more productive. I began using article Talk pages to explain my changes, and found myself going into ever-greater detail, soon regularly accompanied with quoted examples and bullet-point lists, sometimes using hundreds of words to explain why ten weren't correct. I got much more terse than normal, and have said unkind things about the poor quality of more than a few articles. Soon enough, I was being regularly threatened with various charges and potential sanctions, some tiffs becoming quite ludicrous, as when User:Flyer22 Reborn used a Talk page to harangue me for "abusing" Talk pages.

    Yes, I met snarkiness with snarkiness, and I am chagrined to have found myself in such miserable company. That's part of the reason I shifted to Nkofa without pursuing Weeb Dingle more vigorously.

    As explained in User:Flyer22 Reborn's "My views on disruptive editors, including WP:Socks, and disgruntled editors," I defer to the standard thus set:

    Regardless of an editor's intention when following another, WP:HOUND, states, "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. [...] The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason." Notice the "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing" part? It matters not what your intention is if "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing" is the result of your tabs on that editor/following that editor.

    I certainly don't now care about the intentions of User:Flyer22 Reborn, I was highly suspicious that I was being followed spitefully, I am definitely tired of being hounded, and my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia is a fraction of the first months — therefore, the criteria are met.

    I seek not anyone's punishment, just some separation: All I want is to be left alone to edit. Issue a restraining order or equivalent. If I make some change in error, then I am glad to learn the basis of the mistake, and not be harangued for crass ineptitude. Though repeat encounters with User:Flyer22 Reborn have eroded my civility, I strive to be more open and interactive with editors, even when I feel them to be entirely wrong-headed. However, I do not view Wikipedia as my social network or online community — nothing wrong with anyone else doing so — rather a place to perform tasks necessary to help point users to credible, timely, reliable information.

    I am known as a strong-willed person (IRL, at least); if I am feeling this beaten-down, then there are certainly a dozen who, for the sin of mere self-confidence, have been cowed to silence by User:Flyer22 Reborn, and as many who have given up entirely on Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe that User:Flyer22 Reborn is unique, or even particularly interesting. If this is an environment where the bigger bully is always going to come out on top, I am not interested in being either bully or victim.
    Nkofa (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=934108440"