위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive1027

카빈 무달리아

Kavin Mudaliar는 전쟁 편집, 분쟁, 지역 연구 추가에 관여하고 있으며, 이미 알고 있다.관리자로 넘어갑니다. --AntanO 17:21, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

AntanO, 나는 이 보고서가 WP에 있어야 한다고 생각한다.여기보다는 AN3이지만, 대충 살펴본 결과 카빈 무달리어의 편집 접근방식이 우려되는 것처럼 보인다. 편집방법이 많이 바뀌었고, 대화 페이지 참여 방식도 별로 없다.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:16, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Mclarenfan17

• 음클라렌판17 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

언급된 사용자는 2020년 월드랠리챔피언십#엔트리스의 전망을 자신의 취향으로 계속 바꾸고 있다.이것은 적어도 한 달 동안 계속된다.우리는 이전 시즌 기사마다 시스템을 갖추고 있다.무엇보다 아무도 그를 지지하지 않는 토론(모든 참가자들은 이 새로운 형식에 반대했다)을 벌였지만, Mclarenfan17은 여전히 자신이 선호하는 버전을 유지하기 위해 편집 작업을 하고 있다.내가 이 보고서를 만드는 이유는 이런 편집에 대한 선의가 보이지 않기 때문이다.편집의 예(3RR이 깨지지 않을 정도로만): [3] [4] [5] + 3 마지막 24시간 동안 [6] [7] [8]그렇다면 합의는 존중해야 할 것인가, 말아야 할 것인가?Pelmeen10 (대화) 23:17, 2019년 12월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

설명:나는 공감대가 형성되었다는 것을 부정하지 않는다.그러나 그 합의가 성립된 이후 새로운 세부 사항이 밝혀지고 그 합의의 이행은 기사의 출처와 모순된다.나는 가능한 한 이것을 단순하게 유지하도록 노력할 것이다.

합의문 작성 당시 현대와 도요타는 드라이버 라인업을 다음과 같이 발표했다.

• 현대차는 2개의 풀타임 엔트리(타낙/자르보자와 뉴빌/길소울)와 두 크루(소르도/델 바리오와 롭/엘레나)가 공유했다.
• 도요타는 정규 출품작 3종(오기에르/인그라시아, 에반스/마틴, 로반페라/헐투넨)을 보유하고 있었다.

그러나, 그 합의가 성립된 후, 도요타는 계속하여, 1년 동안 2대의 추가 차종을 입력하겠다고 발표했는데, 하나는 자리-마티 라트발라, 1대는 다카모토 카츠타다.이는 이 출처(현재 출처 #20)가 기사에서 뒷받침한다.결정적으로, 이 기사는 도요타가 그들의 팀을 어떻게 구성할 것인지 결정하지 않았다는 것을 분명히 한다.

[자리 마티] 라트발라가 5라운드 계약을 성사시킨다면 도요타에 'B팀'을 만들겠다는 열의가 재점화될 수 있다.라트발라는 잠재적으로 도요타의 수호자인 다카모토 카츠타와 함께 달릴 수 있으며, 그는 8번의 유럽 WRC 라운드와 랠리 재팬을 모두 시작할 것이다.도요타 소식통들은 2020년 2군단이 검토 중이라고 확인했다.원래의 생각은 [칼레] 로반페라와 카츠타가 두 젊은이가 스포트라이트를 받지 않고 배울 수 있도록 두 번째 팀을 위해 운전하는 것이었다.두 번째 점수로 점수를 매기는 제조업체 팀을 등록하고 운영하면 도요타가 3년 만에 두 번째 점수를 따겠다는 야망에 유리할 수 있다.라트발라는 그가 [팀 감독 토미] 마키넨과 도요타를 도울 준비가 되어 있다고 말했다.

"내가 말했듯이 내년에는 운전을 하고 싶어.라트발라 감독은 "2군에서 [가쓰타]에 합류해 점수를 좀 따려고 하는 게 말이 될 수도 있을 것"이라고 말했다.

그리고 이것이 그 문제의 근원이다.기사에서 합의된 내용은 참가자를 그룹화하여 예년에 사용된 테이블 스타일에 맞추어 참가 테이블을 정리하는 것이다.이 스타일은 두 개의 표를 사용한다. 하나는 제조자 점수를 매길 수 있는 항목이고 다른 하나는 그렇지 않은 항목이다.2020년 엔트리를 팀을 중심으로 구성함으로써, 이 기사는 팀 구조가 설정되었다는 것을 암시하는데, 이것은 출처와 모순된다.나는 이것을 요약 편집이나 기사 토크 페이지에서 지적하려고 노력했지만, 펠미엔10으로부터 받은 유일한 답변은 내가 그것이 싫어서 의도적으로 의견 일치를 거스르고 있다는 주장이었다.더군다나 내가 왜 다른 포맷이 필요한지에 대한 설명을 올린 후, 그는 이렇게 대답했다.

귀하의 의견은 WP:아이돈트라이크릿.넌 여기서 어떤 합의도 얻지 못했어.발표되지 않은 자동차 번호는 분류에 근거한 가장 중요한 것으로 보여질 수 없다.우리가 논의했듯이, 이 모든 수치를 뒷받침할 수 있는 원천이 없다.롭 btw는 현재 9번과 연관되어 있다.

나는 테이블 형식이 출처와 모순되는 것을 내포하고 있다는 점을 지적하려고 노력해왔고 그는 대신 "알려지지 않은 자동차 번호"에 대해 이야기하는데, 이것은 그가 기사의 출처나 b) 출처를 읽지 않았다고 믿게 하고 대신 나의 변화를 기사에 되돌리기 위해 서두르고 있다.ous는 테이블 형식에 반대한다.

펠메인10은 합의는 존중해야 할 것인가, 말아야 할 것인가라는 질문을 던지며 자신의 자리를 열었다.나는 그것에 대답하고 싶다: 그렇다, 합의는 존중되어야 할 것이다. 하지만 동시에 합의는 편집자들에게 신뢰할 수 있고 검증 가능한 출처를 무시하거나 무시하거나 잘못 전달하는 면허를 주지 않는다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 00:03, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

편집: 이후 펠미엔10이 "공고되지 않은 자동차 번호"를 언급할 때, 그는 WT에서 다음과 같은 논의를 언급하고 있음을 알게 되었다.그와 다른 편집자가 특정한 주장을 한 MOTOR는 (규정의 제목이 "계절 번호"를 참조하기 때문에, 운전자는 매년 자신의 번호에 대해 재신청해야 하며, 따라서 2020년 기사의 모든 번호는 비협조적 번호라는 것) 그러나, 그들을 요청했을 때 이를 뒷받침할 어떤 출처도 제공하지 않았다.이 ANI 보고서를 게시한 이후 펠미엔10은 (그 논의를 언급하면서) 컨센서스를 집행하는 것을 정당화하기 위한 주장을 반복해 왔다.나의 반응은 그의 이론을 논박하는 여러 출처를 제공하는 것이었다.만약 그가 그 합의가 WT에서의 논의에 기초했다고 주장하려고 한다면:모터스, 그렇다면 나는 그것이 독창적인 연구에 바탕을 두고 있었기 때문에(제목만 '계절 숫자'를 가리키고, 그의 주장을 뒷받침할 만한 실제 규정에는 아무것도 없기 때문에, 그리고 그가 여러 번 요청을 받았음에도 불구하고 신뢰할 수 있고 검증 가능한 출처를 제공하기를 거부했기 때문에 처음부터 합의는 없었다고 주장할 것이다.그와 의견이 다른 사람들에게 부담을 주었다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 01:54, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이 게시판은 콘텐츠 분쟁을 판단하지 않는다. 그러나, 지금까지 논의된 내용은 콘텐츠 세부사항에 관한 것이다.향후의 코멘트를 "긴급한 사건" 또는 "만성적이고 난해한 행동 문제"에 집중하십시오.컬렌³²⁸ 04:28, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC) 토론하자[응답하라]

논평 @Cullen328: 나는 ANI가 무엇을 위한 것인지 알고 있으며 콘텐츠 분쟁을 해결하기 위해 그것을 이용하려고 하는 것이 아니다.나는 단지 Pelmeen10이 잘못 전달하고 있다고 느낀다.그는 내가 개인적인 선호 때문에 의도적으로 합의를 무시하고 있다고 주장하지만, 나는 그렇지 않다.나는 단지 a) 이것을 읽는 관리자가 주제에 친숙하다고 가정할 수 없고, b) 기사를 읽을 때 나의 데시시옴이 형식을 되돌리는 이유가 즉각적으로 명백하지 않으며, c) 펠메인10은 기사, 출처, 정책을 철저히 읽지 않는 습관이 있다고 느끼기 때문에 문맥상 세부사항을 제공할 필요성을 느꼈다.나는 어떤 논의 중에 여기에 참고할 만한 것을 넣고 싶었다.

그렇지 않으면 어떻게 하라고 제안하시겠습니까?"응, 난 합의를 무시했어"라고 말해?내가 그랬으니까.Pelmeen10의 주장처럼 개인적인 선호에서가 아니라 필요에 의해서.테이블의 형식을 뒤로 바꾸었을 때 적어도 컨센서스와 비슷한 형식을 유지하려고 했지만 그럴 수 없었다.나는 이 메시지를 기사 토크 페이지(11월 29일자)에 올렸고, 펠미엔10이 그것을 번복한 같은 날 직접 (이후 그 메시지를 편집했다)고 썼다.12월 26일 펠메인10에게 내가 왜 변화를 줘야 한다고 느꼈는지 다시 설명해 줄 때까지 토크 페이지에는 거의 활동이 없었다(그리고 이 문제와 직접적인 관련이 있는 것도 아니었다).한 달간 (그리고 좀 더 포괄적인 출처가 확보되면 원래의 합의가 적용될 것이라는 기대와 함께) 나는 WP가 다음과 같이 느꼈다.EDITConsensus가 임시 해결책으로 적용되었다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 05:36, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

Mclarenfan17, 당신은 위키피디아에서 다음과 같이 말하고 있음에도 불구하고 합의를 무시하고 있다는 것을 공공연히 인정하고 있다.합의는 정책이고, 당신은 "필요"에 대한 당신 자신의 개인적 인식이 정책을 무시한다고 주장하고 있다.나는 버릇이 없다.좀 더 명확하게 설명해 주시겠습니까?컬렌³²⁸ 05:45, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC) 토론하자[응답하라]

@Cullen328: 컨센서스가 형성되고 이 ANI가 열리는 사이에 2020년 세계선수권대회에 대한 더 많은 정보가 공개되었다.11월 29일(현재 20일자 기사에서 출처)에 게재된 이 출처가 상황을 변화시켰으며, 만약 그 당시 합의 논의가 가능했다면(기록상으로는 11월 28일까지도 합의가 논의되고 있었다) 합의 논의에 영향을 미쳤을 것이라는 생각이 들었다.

WP에서의 합의:WRC는 한 팀을 위해 경쟁하는 모든 승무원이 함께 그룹화되도록 엔트리 테이블이 구성되어야 한다는 것이다(예: 2019년 기사).이것은 모든 모터스포츠 관련 기사에 공통적이다.그러나 11월 29일 이전에 이 같은 공감대가 형성되었다.11월 29일, 도요타는 2020 시즌에 두 대의 자동차를 추가 진입시킬 것이라고 발표했다.그 출처의 내용은 그들이 아직 팀의 구조를 결정하지 않았다는 것을 분명히 했다.다섯 대의 자동차로 이루어진 하나의 큰 팀이 될까?아니면 두 팀이 따로?만약 그렇다면, 그 차들은 어떻게 그들 사이에 분리될까?

이를 보고 공감대에 문제가 있을 것이라는 것을 깨달았다.도요타 출품작 5개를 모두 한 팀인 것처럼 묶은 엔트리 테이블이라는 뜻인데, 이는 출처의 말과 모순된다.이 출처 -오토스포트는 매우 신뢰할 수 있기 때문에 모터스포츠 기사 전반에 걸쳐 가장 널리 사용되는 출처 중 하나이다.게다가, 현대는 이미 그들의 팀이 어떻게 구성될 것인지를 발표했는데, 이것은 내가 그 기사가 도요타가 그들이 하지 않았던 그들의 구조를 마무리했다는 것을 암시하기 때문에 나는 그 출처와 더욱 모순된다고 느꼈다는 것을 의미한다.

표에 변화를 주었을 때, 나는 공감대를 존중하는 동시에 29월 출처의 내용도 반영하려고 최선을 다했지만, 도저히 제대로 될 수 없었다.나는 또한 6주 안에 누가 어떤 팀을 위해 경쟁하고 있는지 분명히 밝혀줄 것이기 때문에 문제를 완전히 해결하는 철통같은 소식통이 발표될 것이라는 것도 알고 있었다.의도치 않게 출처(당시에는 구할 수 없었던)와 모순되는 합의와 매우 신뢰할 수 있고 검증 가능한 출처를 지지하는 합의 중 하나를 6주 이내에 출처가 발표되면 그 합의가 적용될 것이라는 기대감으로 그 합의를 간과하는 것 중 하나를 선택해야 한다는 생각이 들었다.여기서 내가 한 모든 일은 선의였다.펠메인10의 주장대로 나는 공감대가 싫어서가 아니라 공감대가 형성된 후 발표된 정보 때문이었다.11월 29일에 발표된 정보가 컨센서스가 형성되었을 때 이용할 수 있었다면, a) 컨센서스가 그대로 형성되지 않았을 경우, 또는 b) 편집자들이 표 형식을 적용하기 전에 도요타 팀의 구조가 발표될 때까지 기다리기로 합의했을 경우의 컨센서스 논의에 반영되었을 것이다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 06:20, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

Mclarenfan17, 당신은 이 게시판이 내용 분쟁을 판단하지 않는다는 것을 이해한다고 말하지만 당신은 ANI에서 당신이 선호하는 내용에 찬성하여 계속 논쟁하고 있다.확실히 하자면 여기 ANI에서 당신의 콘텐츠 논쟁에 신경쓰는 편집자는 없다.의견 요청을 포함할 수 있는 분쟁 해결을 진행하십시오.간단히 말해서, 합의의 기초가 되는 사실들이 바뀌었다면, 새로운 합의를 도출하기 위해 기사에 관심이 있는 다른 편집자들과 함께 참여하라.설득하다.당신이 선호하는 변경사항을 부과할 권리를 강제로 주장하는 것은 잘못된 것이다. 단지 명백한 잘못이다.그곳에 가지 마십시오.컬렌³²⁸ 07:33, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC) 토론하자[응답하라]

@Cullen328: 여기서 내가 무슨 말을 하기를 바라는지 잘 모르겠어.당신이 나에게 나의 행동에 대해 설명해 달라고 요청했고, 나는 당신이 여기서 나의 생각을 이해할 수 있는 충분한 세부사항으로 그것을 하려고 노력했지만, 당신은 단지 "ANI는 콘텐츠 분쟁을 위한 것이 아니다"라고 대답한다.나는 내가 합의를 무시할 권리가 있다고 주장하는 것이 아니다.내가 말하는 것은 내가 공감대와 신뢰할 수 있는 출처 중 하나를 선택해야 하는 위치에 놓였을 때, 나는 공감대를 충족시키고 원천이 불가능하다고 판명되었을 때 믿을 수 있는 출처를 선택했다는 것이다.이 글을 기사토크 페이지에 올리자 아무도 오지 않고 딜레마를 해결하는 대안을 제시했다.나는 합의된 형식이 결국 적용되고 내가 한 모든 일이 선의로 이루어지리라는 모든 기대와 의도를 가지고 있었다.이는 기사의 '선호 버전'과는 무관하다.

너는 내 입장에서 어떻게 하겠니?대체로 외관적이지만, 그 합의가 이루어졌을 때 접근할 수 없었던 믿을 수 있는 출처와 상반되는 의견의 일치를 관찰할 수도 있고, 또는 가능한 한 빨리 그 합의를 재도입하기 위한 목적으로 기사가 출처를 정확하게 반영하도록 하기 위해 당분간 의견의 일치를 간과할 수도 있다.두 가지를 한꺼번에 만족시킬 수는 없고, 나의 가장 큰 실수는 내가 잘못된 선택을 한 것 같아.나는 WP에서 아무것도 볼 수 없기 때문에 그것을 만들었다.편집자가 WP를 무시하는 컨센서스를 형성할 수 있다고 하는 컨센서스:믿을 수 있다.내가 놓치고 있다면 나에게 지적해 줘.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 08:13, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

Mclarenfan17, 여기서 올바른 행동 방침은 우선 대담하게 기사를 편집하려고 시도한 다음, 토크 페이지로 가서 해답을 구하는 것이었을 것이다.토론이 해결될 때까지 편집 내용을 다시 복원하려고 해서는 안 된다.기사의 다른 편집자들이 당신의 주장을 무시하고 있다고 생각한다면, 당신은 그것을 WP에 가져갈 수 있다.DRN 또는 WP 소집:RFC. Rosguill^talk 08:54, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

@Rosguill:나는 정확히 그렇게 하려고 노력했다.11월 29일 기사에 올린 편집본이며, 5분 뒤 토크 페이지에 올린 설명이다.(토크 페이지, 나의 토크 페이지 또는 관련 위키프로젝트에서는) 유일하게 응답한 사람은 눈에 보이는 것을 되돌리고 자신이 되돌리고 있는 기사를 포함한 기사와 출처를 읽지 않는 습성을 가진 편집자였다.대표적인 경우, 이 편집은, 그가 확인을 하지 않았기 때문에 신뢰성 있게 소싱한 내용(타카모토 가쓰타의 기재)을 삭제한 경우다.나는 과감하게, 왜 변화가 필요하다고 느꼈는지에 대한 설명을 올렸으며, 그것에 대해 다른 사람들과 함께 일하겠다는 의지를 보였으며, 지난 24시간까지 아무것도 나오지 않았다(지난 주 몇 번의 다른 편집이 있었지만, 대체로 이슈와 무관하며, 비소싱적인 내용을 추가했다).Mclarenfan17 (대화) 09:10, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

Mclarenfan17, 11월에 토크페이지로 가져간 것이 옳은 결정이었다.만약 다른 편집자들이 그곳에서 당신에게 응답하지 않는다면, 다음 단계는 문제의 정확한 성격에 따라 RfC를 소집하거나 여기서 스레드를 시작하는 것이다._signed, 로스구일^talk 09:17, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

현재 집회 기사에 있는 다른 편집자들인 Rosguill은 대부분 한두 개의 의견을 남긴다(또는 더 이상 논평조차 하지 않을 것이다). 왜냐하면 Mclarenfan17은 같은 논쟁으로 끝도 없이 토론을 계속할 수 있기 때문이다(주, 월). 이것은 결코 어떤 것으로도 이어지지 않을 것이다.Pelmeen10 (대화) 18:08, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그래서 나는 우리가 동의하는 위키피디아 형식으로 돌아갈 수 있을까?우리가 몇 년 동안 사용했던 것.왜냐하면 아직 Rfc나 DRN이 시작되지 않았기 때문이다(그것은 거의 필시 필요없다고 확신하는데, 왜냐하면 이 과목의 모든 활동적인 편집자들이 이미 그들의 생각을 주었기 때문이다.게다가, Mclarenfan17은 그의 버전이 일시적인 것이라고 주장한다.이제 Mclarenfan17이 나를 다시 되돌리면 안 된다는 것이 확실해?하지만 편집전에 참가하고 싶진 않아.Pelmeen10 (대화) 17:29, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

설명:나는 그 합의가 적용되는 것에 대해 반대하지 않지만, 그것의 실행은 기사에 출처를 정확하게 반영할 필요가 있다고 제안할 것이다.도요타 엔트리 5개를 마치 한 팀인 것처럼 묶을 수 없다는 얘기다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 18:52, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

또 다른 위반:Mclarenfan17은 DRN/Rfc가 끝난 후 합의를 존중조차 하지 않았다. 여기 자발적이지 않은 편집자가 토론을 "3열 제거를 지지하는 작은 합의가 있는 것 같다"로 요약한 것이 있다. 그러나 불과 3일 후(2019년 11월 24일) Mclarenfan17은 "합의"가 너무 작아서 아무도 하지 않았다고 주장하면서 이를 되돌린다.한 편집자의 의제로 인해 10주 동안 이 문제가 악화되었다"고 말했다.그래서 그 행동은 계속해서 반복되고 있다...펠멘10 (대화) 18:03, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

논평: 문제의 "합의"는 나에 대한 지속적인 비방 캠페인을 벌여온 한 편집자에 의해 형성되었다.나와 함께 시작한다는 것은 매우 약했고, 기사에 도움이 되기보다는 편집 연습을 좌절시키도록 분명히 설계되었다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 18:52, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 그 사용자(tvx1)는 나를 포함한 다른 집회 편집자들 사이에서 존경을 받고 있다.하지만 내가 보기엔 너는 사적인 것(공격하고 모욕하는 것)으로 그의 발언을 깎아내리려고 하는 것 같다.당신은 또한 논평과 요약 편집의 두 가지 면에서 다른 편집자들을 공격했다.필요하다면 예를 들 수 있다.펠멘10 (대화) 19:03, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

저 이용자의 편집 이력을 보면 그가 기사집회에 기여한 유일한 것은 현 시즌의 토크 페이지 토론에 참여하고 토론에서 나를 반대하는 것뿐이다.그는 실제로 집회 기사에 기고한 적이 없다.그의 편집 이력은 그가 기사를 편집하는 것을 좋아하고, 그 주제 안에서 여러 기사와 토크 페이지 토론에 기여하지만, 한 번에 하나의 토크 페이지에만 기여하는 것은 아니기 때문에 눈에 띈다.그건 정말 네가 상관할 일도 아니고 별도의 ANI의 문제야. Mclarenfan17 (대화) 19:44, 2019년 12월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자의 잘못된 믿음과 일반적으로 잘못된 편집에 대한 심각한 비난을 하고 있는 경우:당신이 디프트를 제공하지 않았음에도 불구하고 여기 TVx1과 AFAIK는 당신의 주장이 성립된 사례가 없다.당신은 또한 당신의 심각한 비난에도 불구하고 이 토론을 TVx1에 알리지 못했다.나는 당신을 위해 그렇게 할 것이지만 나는 당신이 당신의 주장을 뒷받침하기 위해 디프와 간단한 요약본을 제공하거나 혹은 당신이 잘못된 행동에 대한 뒷받침되지 않는 주장을 했다는 이유로 인신공격으로 인해 차단되지 않도록 그것들을 철회할 것을 제안한다.전에 네 두 이름을 본 기억이 나는데 위키피디아를 우연히 발견했어.관리자 게시판/IncidentArchive 1015#해러스트먼트 편집자 의견인데, 당신의 의견이 너무 길어서 당신의 주장이 부분적으로 받아들여지지 않는 것 같았다.그럼에도 불구하고, 당신이 당신의 입장에서 어떤 잘못된 행동을 받아들이기를 꺼리는 것에 약간의 좌절감이 있었다.닐 아인(토크) 04:55, 2019년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

@닐 아인:나는 이 토론을 위키호킹에 대한 토론으로 바꾸고 싶지 않았다.나는 별도의 ANI가 그것에 더 적합할 것이라고 생각한다. 그러나, 나는 문제의 편집자와 어떤 문제도 가지고 있지 않았다. 그리고 내가 위키-호킹의 주제를 제기하려고 했을 때, 나는 편집자가 DRN 토론을 "losed"한 것에 대한 약간의 보복을 가져오는 것으로 나의 ANI 보고서를 성공적으로 잘못 전달했다고 느꼈다(DRN 자원봉사자 refusin의 도움은 받지 않았다.g 내가 게시한 모든 것을 읽지만, 어쨌든 그것에 대한 판단을 내리는 것이 적합하다고 본다.네가 아마 알겠지만, 이것에 비추어 볼 때 나는 위키호킹에 대한 또 다른 ANI를 시작하고 싶은 욕구가 거의 없다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 07:40, 2019년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 당신이 폐쇄가 잘못되었다는 것을 의미하는 절차상의 문제가 있다고 믿는다면, 당신은 이것을 더 가까이서 의논하고 종결문을 바꾸도록 노력해야 한다.최악의 경우, WP에 언제든지 문의할 수 있다.A 또는 이와 유사하게 다시 닫아 달라고 요청한다.마찬가지로 새로운 정보 때문에 합의가 바뀌었다고 느낀다면, WP는 다음과 같이 해도 괜찮다.경우에 따라 과감하게 변경한다.하지만 일단 누군가가 반대하면, 당신은 공감대가 정말로 바뀌었다는 것을 입증하기 위해 노력할 필요가 있다.만약 누군가가 반대했고 아무도 의견을 제시하지 않는다면, 당신은 상대방의 반대 의견에 대한 당신의 관점이 무엇이든 간에 합의가 바뀌었다는 실질적인 증거를 가지고 있지 않기 때문에 당신은 RfC를 통해 확립된 오래된 합의로 돌아가야 한다.당신은 WP:3O나 더 많은 피드백을 요청하는 관련 위키피디아 주제에 중립적인 메시지를 게시하는 것과 같은 다른 방법을 사용해 볼 수 있다.궁극적으로, 만약 당신이 그러한 방법들을 통해 합의점을 얻을 수 없다면, 당신은 또 다른 WP:RfC를 가동하여 주장되는 새로운 합의점을 확립하고 기존의 합의점을 뒤집을 필요가 있다.싫다고 좁은 합의라도 간단히 거절할 수는 없다.분명히 말하지만, 나는 다른 편집자들의 동기 부여에 대한 당신의 개인적인 의견뿐만 아니라, 합의된 관점이 잘못되었고, 작동하지 않으며, 수술에 기초하고 있고, 무효하다는 당신의 부분에 대한 진실한 믿음을 포함하고 있다.특히 3일 전에 합의가 안 됐지닐 아인(토크) 05:11, 2019년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 내가 정확히 그것을 했다고 느낀다.나는 새로운 정보를 바탕으로 대담하게 편집했다.나는 토크 페이지에 설명을 올렸으나 아무런 답변도 받지 못했다.펠메인10은 그것을 되돌렸고 나는 그의 복귀가 합의와 상관없는 글의 내용을 삭제했으므로 그에게 몸조심해 줄 것을 부탁하며 직접 토크페이지에서 그에게 연설했다.그는 결코 응답하지 않았다.아무도 하지 않았고, 약 24시간 전까지만 해도 상황은 조용했다.내가 그 합의를 싫어해서 무시했다는 펠미엔10의 거듭된 주장에도 불구하고, 내가 한 모든 일은 선의로 이루어졌다.공감대를 바꿀 수 있는 정보를 가진 공감대와 출처 중 하나를 선택해야 한다는 생각이 들었다.공감대와 일치하면서도 출처를 정확히 반영하도록 표를 재포맷하려다 실패한 것뿐입니다.

Pelmeen10이 계속 주장하기를 원한다면 WP는 다음과 같은 이유로 나는 그 합의를 무시했다.IDONTLICKIT, 그렇다면 나는 그가 그 주장을 뒷받침할 증거를 제시해야 한다고 생각한다.그렇지 않으면 그는 WP를 무시하고 있다.AGF.

지난 일주일 동안 기사 부분에서 몇 차례 반전을 수행했지만, 이는 비협조적인 내용이 기사에 추가되고 있었고 합의와는 무관했기 때문이었다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 07:40, 2019년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 기사 토론을 보지 않고 위의 말을 했다.그리고 솔직히 말해서, 이제 나도 너와 대화하고 싶지 않아.나는 네가 RfC라는 훌륭한 표현을 함께 쓰자고 제안했었구나.

하지만 당신이 "tvx1이 이 주제에 대해 말할 수 있는 것은 아무 가치도 없다." 그리고 "나는 사람들을 모욕하지 않는다. 이 논의에 대한 tvx1의 유일한 관심은 나를 괴롭히는 것"이라고 말한 것은 정반대다.만약 당신이 Tvx1과의 관계를 최소화하고 싶다면, 그것은 괜찮다.하지만 위에서 말했듯이, 만약 당신이 Tvx1이 당신을 괴롭히고 있다는 증거를 가지고 있다면, 당신은 ANI 사건을 열어서 지역사회를 설득할 필요가 있다.그렇게 하기 전까지는 기사토크 페이지에서는 특히 비난하지 말아야 하고, 특히 관련성이 별로 없는 곳에서는 비난하지 말아야 한다.(편집자가 다른 3개의 핑 3개를 시도했으므로, 그들이 tvx1의 의견만을 요구했던 것은 아니다.)

편집자로서, 그런 무작위적인 인신공격들을 보는 것은 내가 당신과의 어떤 논의에도 관여하는 것을 매우 꺼리게 만든다.아무 이유 없이 날 공격하기로 결정할지 누가 알겠는가?

좀 더 일반적으로 말해서, 내가 솔직하다면, 이것은 매우 바보같은 문제인 것 같다.기사에 따라 1월 23일에 챔피언쉽이 시작된다.지금쯤이면 RfC가 문을 닫을 때쯤이면 30일 내내 지속된다면 그 우려는 더 이상 유지되지 않을 것이기 때문에 난장판이 될 것이다.이것은 부정확한 정보를 갖는 것이 괜찮다는 것을 의미하지는 않지만, 여러분 모두가 모든 우려를 해결하기 위해 어떤 종류의 합의에 도달하지 않을 수 있는가?표를 있는 그대로 유지하고 예를 들어 각주를 사용하여 명확히 하는 것을 고려해 보셨습니까?물론 RfC 없이도 할 수 있는 일이 있다.만약 RfC가 이 문제를 향후 몇 년 동안 해결하려고 노력하기를 원한다면, 그것은 또 다른 일이겠지만, 올해 챔피언십이 시작될 때까지 기다리는 것이 더 나을 것이다. 그래서 사람들은 올해에 특정한 세부 사항들에 너무 얽매이지 않기 위해서 말이다.

닐 아인(토크) 09:50, 2019년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 두 편집자의 우려에 편승하여 컨센서스 버전을 실행하려고 노력했다. 나는 내가 그것을 더 이상 가져가는 것이 귀찮을 것 같지 않기 때문에 그들이 여기서 그것을 가져갔으면 좋겠다.어쨌든 나는 주로 당신이 RfC를 원하는 사람이 있다면 반드시 사전에 문구에 동의한 후 우리의 정책과 당신의 선호에 대한 가이드라인을 뒷받침하는 간단한 설명에 집중해야 한다고 말하고자 돌아왔다.Wikipedia Talk와 같은 기존 참여자들 간의 광범위한 전후 관계를 갖는 RfC:위키프로젝트 월드랠리/아카이브 3#테이블 형식에 대한 코멘트 요청은 실패할 가능성이 높다.닐 아인(토크) 11:22, 2019년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

콘텐츠 관련 도움에 감사드린다.그러나 내가 이 주제를 시작하게 된 것은, 언급된 사용자의 행동이 합의를 무시하고 자신이 선호하는 버전으로 편집하는 것이기 때문이다.나는 사용자들이 이런 종류의 행동을 멈출지 확신할 수 없다.그의 이전 사용자인 Prilentmonkeys는 편집 워링으로 여러 번 차단되었는데, 나는 그가 배운 유일한 것은 3RR (24시간 동안 3회 이상 되돌림)을 깨뜨리지 않고 "수정되지 않은"을 제거하는 것이라고 생각한다.편집 요약에서.내 말은, 이전의 논쟁은 디펜딩 챔피언이 (규칙에 따라) 자신의 자동차 번호로 1번을 선택할 수 있다는 가능성을 보여주지 않는 것에 대한 것이었다. 나는 TBA(숫자의 직접적인 출처는 없음)를 주장했고, 여기서 논의를 시작했으며, 나중에 더 많은 피드백을 얻기 위해 그것을 여기로 옮겼다.Mclarenfan17은 다음과 같은 반전을 가지고 있다: [9][10][11][12][13][15][15][15][18][18][19][20][21][23][24][25][27][28][29]. 그는 다른 사용자들을 #8로 21번 되돌렸다.펠멘10 (대화) 18:22, 2019년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그러한 편집들 중 어떤 것도 숫자 변경을 뒷받침할 수 있는 출처를 제공하지 않았다.

나는 또한 Pelmeen10이 그 WT에서 특정한 주장을 했다는 것을 지적하고 싶다.모터 토론.나는 반복해서 그에게 그 주장을 뒷받침할 자료를 제공해 달라고 요청했지만 그는 거절했다.그는 대신 그가 틀렸다는 것을 증명하기 위해 자신과 의견이 다른 사람들에게 부담을 지웠다고 주장했다.이 문제는 2020년 기사토크 페이지에 올라왔는데, 그는 이 숫자가 "직접 조달되거나 공식적이지 않다"고 주장했다.나의 반응은 네 가지 믿을 만한 출처를 제공하는 것이었는데, 모두 그의 원래 주장을 폭로했다.펠메인10은 이에 대해 애초에 이 문제를 꺼냈음에도 불구하고 이 문제는 논의되고 있지 않다고 답했다.

Pelmeen10은 나에게 어떤 종류의 행정 조치를 취하기를 원하는 것이 분명하다.그러나 그가 제공한 다른 점은 나에게 비지원적인 내용을 되돌리는 것을 보여주며, 그 자신도 도전할 때 비지원적인 주장을 하고 그러한 주장을 뒷받침하는 어떤 출처도 제공하지 않는 나쁜 버릇은 있다.그는 또한 애초에 자신이 주장했던 것에 도달하기 위해 독창적인 연구에 착수했다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 23:07, 2019년 12월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

네가 한 비난은 정말 이해가 안 가.위키피디아에 추가된 내용은 직접적인 출처가 필요한 것이지, 그 반대는 아니다.소스가 실제로 쓰는 것보다 더 많이 추가해서 내용이 틀려서는 안 된다.나는 네가 나에게 도전하는 것이 아니라 너의 추가된 내용에 도전하는 것이었다.당신이 어떻게든 부메랑으로 만들려고 하는 동안, 당신은 26년 12월 대화를 제공함으로써 무언가를 혼란스럽게 하고 있는 반면, 내가 열거한 반전은 10월 31일에서 21일 사이에 일어났다.그래서 이 문제는 불과 이틀 전에 나온 것이 아니라 11월 21일에 당신이 토론에서 제시했던 노트를 되돌리지 않음으로써 해결되었다(예시 [30] [31] [32]).그 메모는 11월 21일부터 지금 거기에 있다.디펜딩 챔피언이 1위를 선택할 수 있다는 규칙은 스포츠 규정에 있어. 너도 알잖아.나는 11월 3일에 스포츠 관련 규정을 추가하려고 노력했는데, 네가 그것을 번복했다.11월 22일 다른 번호의 "이 문제"는 Tvx1과 SSSB라는 두 명의 사용자들에 의해 제기되었다.인용하자면:스포츠 규정뿐만 아니라 기사의 출처를 다시 살펴본 나는 더 이상 이 운전자들이 직업 번호를 선택했다고 확신할 수 없다. 출처와 규정 모두 "경력 번호"를 언급하지 않는다. 그들은 모두 사실 계절/계절 숫자에 대해 이야기한다. 그들은 한 시즌 동안 숫자만 예약하는 것 같다. 제작진이 여러 시즌에 걸쳐 동일한 숫자를 선택할 가능성이 높지만, 우리는 확신할 수 없다. - 당신이 제공한 자료에서, 그들이 매년 같은 숫자를 유지할 수 있다고 언급한 적이 없고, "진로 번호"가 의미하는 것도 설명되지 않았다.그 규칙에서, 그들은 여전히 "계절 숫자"이다.여기서 내용을 논의해서 미안해.Pelmeen10 (토크) 01:42, 2019년 12월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 독창적인 연구다.

스포츠 규정뿐만 아니라 기사의 출처를 다시 살펴본 나는 더 이상 이 운전자들이 직업 번호를 선택했다고 확신할 수 없다.출처와 규정 모두 "경력 번호"를 언급하지 않는다.그들은 모두 사실 계절/계절 숫자에 대해 이야기한다.그들은 한 시즌 동안 숫자만 예약하는 것 같다.여러 시즌에 걸쳐 크루들이 같은 숫자를 선택할 것 같지만, 우리는 확신할 수 없다.

"계절 번호"가 언급되는 유일한 장소는 이 규정의 17조 제목이다.17절 본문에는 "한 시즌 동안 숫자만 예약하는 것 같다"는 내용이 없다.나는 반복적으로 이 내막을 뒷받침할 자료를 찾았지만 아무것도 찾지 못했다.나는 이 해석을 뒷받침할 수 있는 자료를 제공해 달라고 거듭 요청했지만, 당신은 거절했다.그리고 나는 승무원들이 영구적인 숫자를 선택한다는 것을 구체적으로 명시하는 신뢰할 수 있고 검증 가능한 네 가지 자료를 제공했다.당신은 화제를 바꾸면서 응답했다.당신이 그 주장을 뒷받침할 근원이 없다는 것은 꽤 명백하지만, 그럼에도 불구하고 그것이 사실이라고 주장하고 이것이 부정확하다고 지적하는 어떤 사람이나 그 어떤 것도 언급하기를 거부한다.Mclarenfan17 (대화) 05:27, 2019년 12월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

당신이 열거한 출처 중 아무도 그 "경력 번호"가 무엇을 의미하는지 언급하지 않는다!이 숫자가 다음 시즌(2020년 이 경우)까지 이어질 것이라는 언급은 하지 않는다.WP라고 부를 수 있다.Crystal 또는 WP:OR. 충분한 정보를 가지고 있지 않다고 숫자를 삭제하는 것은 OR이 아니다. 당신이 그렇게 생각하는 것은 매우 우스운 일이다."기대 숫자"를 나열하지 않는 것이 옳을 것이다.이제 2021_World_Rally_Championship#Entries에도 같은 숫자를 추가하셨군요.펠멘10 (대화) 18:50, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

For What It's Borth

이것은 부분적으로 내용상의 논쟁이고, 부분적으로는 행동상의 논쟁이며, 여기에는 많은 논쟁이 있다.이것은 행동 포럼이다.그러나 대부분의 행위 분쟁, 특히 가장 어려운 행위 분쟁은 내용 분쟁으로 시작된다.내용 요소가 없는 행위 분쟁은 대개 단순한 공공 기물 파손이나 트롤링이며, 일반적으로 한 명의 관리자가 아무런 이의 없이 가해자가 건설적으로 여기에 있지 않고 차단이 필요하다고 결론내리면 해결될 수 있다.불행하게도, 여기서 우리가 가지고 있는 것은 모터스포츠에 관한 복수의 콘텐츠 분쟁에 관여하는 편집자와 관련된 분쟁이다.빈번한 콘텐츠 분쟁에 관여하는 편집자는 논쟁적인 영역에서 편집하는 편집자 또는 협업이 잘 되지 않는 편집자다.이 편집기, 사용자:Mclarenfan17은 많은 콘텐츠 분쟁에 휘말리는 편집자로 보이며, 그 중 많은 부분이 WP에 온다.DRN은 콘텐츠 분쟁으로, 일부는 실행 분쟁으로 여기에 온다.나는 일반적으로 콘텐츠 분쟁에서 중립적이 되려고 노력해왔고, RFC에 의해 그것들을 해결하는 것을 도왔다.하지만, 만약 편집자가 너무 많은 콘텐츠 분쟁에 휘말리면, 그들은 충분히 타협하지 않는 편집자일 수도 있다.로버트 매클론 (대화) 18:49, 2019년 12월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:SinclaEO

아마도 이것은 AIV로 갔어야 했는데, 약간 복잡하다.나는 특별하다고 생각한다:기여/신클레어 CEO는 블록이 필요하다.이것들 중 어느 것이 진실인지 나는 알 수 없지만, 그들의 첫 번째 편집은 내가 강하게 의심하는 이 [34]이었다.누군가가 지금 몇 달째 그런 허튼소리를 덧붙이려 하고 있다 [35] [36] [37] [38].마지막 편집은 Special:에서 나온 것이기 때문에 특히 흥미롭다.그 기사(더그 채프먼(미식축구)에 재검열된 자료를 추가한 뒤 가까스로 자신을 봉쇄한 기여자/마샬777.그것은 또한 Sinclair CEO가 기사를 편집하기 위해 무엇을 해야 할지 모른다고 가정할 때, 그들은 기사가 반보호되어 있기 때문에 활동을 하지 않을 수도 있다.그러나 마샬77의 역사는 보호가 만료되면 다시 활성화될 것임을 시사한다.BTW, 나는 재생산된 자료를 보는 것만으로도 아마도 이 일의 배후에 누가 있는지 입증하기에 충분할 것이라고 생각하지만, 의심스러운 점이 있다면 [39] [40]을 참조하십시오.우연히도, 편집자가 존재하지 않는 싱클레어 방송 그룹과의 어떤 연관성을 암시하려 하고 있다는 것을 확신할 수 있을 것 같아. 그래서 그것은 사용자 이름 위반이기도 하다.응, 분명 돌아올 거야. 하지만 블록이 많아지면 AIV에 보고하는 등 대처가 더 쉬워질 거야.닐 아인(토크) 06:24, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

적어도 한 명의 이전 반달로 확인되었고 차단되었다.닌자로봇피리테 (토크) 06:38, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

법적 위협을 하는 편집자

토드스타네스3 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

편집자는 이전에 자신에 대한 기사를 편집한 사람들을 고소하겠다고 협박했다. 그리고 오늘도 반복해서, dif를 보라.분명히 그는 좌절했고 나는 대체 옵션을 설명하려고 시도했지만 그는 WP에 응답하지 않았다.11월에 발생한 NLT 경고, COI 우려 및 기타 계정에는 이전에 대응하지 않은 경고. 사용자:Toddstarnes 및 사용자:TPDNYC는 도날드 앨버리에 의해 양말처럼 막혔다.멜코스 (대화) 10:16, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

이게 정말 토드 스타네스가 편집한 거라고 생각해?내가 알고 있다는 것을 증명하기 어렵다.참일 경우 WP:AUTO가 적용됨.--AUTOIanMacM: 10:35, 2020년 1월 3일(UTC)[응답]

Starnes의 책들 중 하나는 They Footed My Hood and Found Gravy on the Dipstick에 제목이 붙여져 있기 때문에 AUTO는 확실히 적용된다.EENG 13:52, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

그것이 스타네스인지 아닌지는 정말 중요하지 않다.그것이 누구든 법적인 위협은 명백하게 철회되지 않는 한 그리고 확실하게 철회될 때까지 블록의 근거가 된다.이것은 우리가 그들을 무시해야 한다는 것을 의미하는 것이 아니라, 단순히 누구나 위키피디아를 편집할 수 있는 것과 그런 위협을 하는 것 중 하나를 선택해야 한다는 것을 의미한다.필 브리저 (대화) 10:44, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

법적 위협은 명확하고 사용자는 경고를 받은 후에도 계속 위협하고 있다.나는 그 계정을 적절히 차단했다.윤수이 10:53, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:HunterTubeHD85960

AIV가 잠겨 있는 동안 또 다른 중단 계정

@Johnuniq: 2600:1702:4000:8110::/64(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자·블록 로그)는 이전 2개월의 기여도를 바탕으로 그들이 사용하는 다음 IP를 잡을 가능성이 더 높다고 생각한다.—[AlanM1(대화)]—08:37, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

2600:1702:4000:8110:/64 차단 제안

/64 범위를 상당 기간(최소한 한 달) 차단해야 하는지에 대한 의견이 있는가?그 범위에서, 다음의 12개의 IP가 편집되었으며, 첫 번째 IP는 2019년 11월 10일이다.

• d3d4
• 39e8
• c6a9
• 9e84
• 9ef6
• f728
• e42f
• f08b
• f7c3
• 6c53년
• 5e8e
• 766d

지금은 꼼꼼하게 확인할 시간이 없지만, 내가 본 몇 개는 같은 사용자가 재미있게 놀고 있는 것처럼 보였다.일부 편집은 선의로 변호될 수 있지만 IMHO는 한 시간 동안 편집자들이 그러한 선의의 편집이 철회되어야 하는지를 주장하도록 하기 위해 고안된 트롤링처럼 보인다.위의 IP 중 건설적인 IP가 없다면 상당한 블록이 보장될 것이다.@AlanM1: 무슨 생각 있어?조누니크 (대화) 09:14, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 위의 각각의 표본을 추출했고 그것은 분명히 한 사람이 빈둥거리고 있는 것이다.나는 3개월 동안 /64를 막았다.마음에 드는 기사에서 문제를 발견한 사람이 있으면 언제든지 연락해.조누니크 (대화) 04:13, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

지퍼릭계정

윌리엄 자발레타는 재능 있는 매니저로, 그래미상 수상 기록 엔지니어인 제프 에머릭의 전 고객 중 한 명이다.계정 사용자:지퍼릭은 2017년에 자신이 에머릭이라고 주장했다.그 계정은 그의 기사를 편집하고 있었다.불행히도 에머릭은 2018년 사망했지만 이 계정은 윌리엄 자발레타, 소속사, 의뢰인과 관련된 기사를 계속 편집하고 있다.나는 공유 계정, UPE, COI의 사례, 그리고 탤런트 에이전시에 대한 일반적인 혐오감을 의심한다.다이유샤 (대화) 13:20, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

최근 사망한 사람의 명의로 된 계좌를 사용하는 것 역시 극히 부실한 취향이다.필 브리저 (대화) 16:56, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

그건 꽤 비열한 짓이다.UPE, 프로모션 편집 및 가장에 대해 차단됨.윤수이 10:51, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

올림픽 ip 에디터

47.213.223.81 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS) 2024년 청소년 동계 올림픽이 평창에 시상되지 않은 것을 주장하면서 위조된 데이터를 표에 계속 추가한다.(여기서 그리고 여기).ip는 비협조적이고 빠르게 그들의 토크 페이지를 비운 광범위한 역사를 가지고 있다.카드84664 (대화) 21:36, 2020년 1월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 단지 도우려고 했을 뿐이다.나는 2024년 동계유스올림픽 페이지와 청소년올림픽 페이지와 이 두 페이지에 인용한 출처에 따르면 평창은 현재까지 유일하게 확정된 후보지이며 IOC는 일주일 안에 개최 도시를 시상할 예정이고 분쟁 중인 다른 어느 도시도 더 많은 관심을 표명한 적이 없다. 47.213.232.81 (토크)09:23, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  위키피디아는 그렇게 작동하지 않는다.WP 참조:NOT Crystalball. –MJL ▲^☖토크 14:35, 2020년 1월 3일(UTC)[응답]

2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7이 107.77.227.107로 보고됨

2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7(토크 · 기여 · (/64) · 삭제 기여 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) – 이 사용자는 몇 달 동안 Abby Hatcher에게 설명되지 않은 변경을 해 왔다.사용자의 IP가 많이 바뀌기 때문에 레인지 블록이 필요할 수 있다. 107.77.227.107 (대화) 18:17, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

편집은 공공 기물 파손이 아니다. 재신고하기 전에 최근 편집한 내용이 공공 기물 파손에 해당되는지 확인하십시오.문제의 편집된 내용이 어디에 공공 기물 파손인지 모르겠다.그것은 대부분 악의 없는 표현과 약간의 사소한 추가들로 보인다.나는 그 IP가 편집한 두 가지 내용 중 어느 곳에서도 나쁜 믿음이 보이지 않는데, 왜 그들이 되돌아가야 하는지도 모르겠다.제이론32 18:22, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자는 스파클스가 퍼즐리라고 반복해서 말하지만, 스파클스는 쇼에서 퍼즐리라고 일컬어지는 법이 없다.사용자 역시 그루블을 계속 '괴물'이라고 표현하지만 괴물은 확실한 외모를 가지고 있지 않다.나는 그가 설명 없이 이것들을 계속 추가할까 봐 두렵다.실제로 사용자가 자신의 편집 내용을 설명하지 않는 것 같다. 107.77.227.107 (대화) 18:54, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 하지만 이건 공공 기물 파손이 아니야.반달리즘은 "내가 동의하지 않는 것"을 의미하지 않는다.이것은 몇 가지 문구의 변화와 그 단어들의 의미에 대한 당신과 그들 사이의 의견 차이 입니다.당신은 왜 그들의 변화에 동의하지 않는지 설명하기 위해 기사 토크 페이지에서 토론을 시작해보았는가?이 사람에게 연락하려고 했던 이전 시도는 무엇이었습니까? --Jayron32 19:19, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

특수:기여/2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7/64는 흥미로울 수 있다.~ ToBeFree (토크) 19:10, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 거기서 어떤 나쁜 믿음의 편집증거도 보이지 않는다.여기 저기 몇 가지 사소한 트윗, 수천 명의 사람들이 매일 하는 그런 종류의 사소한 트윗.그 /64 범위의 실제 악신 편집 몇 가지 글을 올려주시겠습니까? --Jayron32 19:20, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

이 기사가 사용할 수 있는 것은 5살과 40살짜리 부모가 결코 구체적인 것을 배우려 하지 않는다는 어린이 쇼에서 허구의 동물 종족에 대한 싸움을 하는 것이 아니라 출처다.말그대로 많은 정보원을 봤는데, 그 동네 밖에서는 아무도 에피소드 초연 시청률을 신경 쓰지 않아.실제 쇼의 캐릭터에 대해서는 아무것도 보지 못하지만, 각 캐릭터에 대한 많은 긴 글들이 좋은 자장가를 만들어 줄 것이다(모두 심한 편집이 필요하다).이것은 절름발이 편집전의 모든 소질을 가지고 있다.네이트 • (대화) 01:35, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자별 페이지 공백:와이즈그랜더거

오스트레일리아 역사99

작성자 사용자:작가 브루스 파스코에 대한 이 도끼 작업의 오스트리아 역사99 (자체 COI 선언)는 그의 바이오 기사와 그의 책 다크 에뮤의 기사에 모두 기여해왔다 - 그의 웹사이트 다크 에뮤 노출의 톤을 고려하면, 나는 이것이 COI를 넘어선다고 믿는다.호주의 역사99는 이제 Pascoe의 책 Talk 페이지를 출판했고, 이 책은 인기 있고 현대적이며, 현재 저작권 하에서 출판되고 출판되고 있다. 이 텍스트를 전부 제공하는 것은 노골적인 저작권 위반이다.편집자들이 다른 슬러들 중 "Pascoe 회장"과 "Pascoe 황제"로 기사를 기술한 공격 페이지의 저자와 최근 지적 재산에 대한 저작권 위반/불충분자임을 스스로 인정했기 때문이다.나는 이 편집자가 기사 주제에 대해 입증 가능하고 심각한 문제를 가지고 있으며 브루스 파스코와 관련된 모든 기사에서는 금지되어야 한다고 생각한다.바콘드럼 (토크) 02:07, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 어떤 것이든, 나는 전체 책과 연결하는 것이 WP를 위반하는 것이라는 것에 동의한다.카피비오엘.WP:REX와 다른 방법들은 편집자들을 돕기 위해 자원을 교환하는데 사용될 수 있다. 토크 페이지의 전체 책에 대한 일반적인 연결은 너무 멀다.그들이 다시 이런 짓을 한다면 편집자는 차단되어야 한다.닐 아인(토크) 02:37, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

피드백 고마워.다크 에뮤와 관련하여 위반된 저작권은 BLP 기사의 제목인 브루스 파스코에 속한다는 점을 지적하고 싶다.편집자가 Pascoe의 명예를 훼손하고 자신의 책을 신빙성을 떨어뜨리는 데 전념하는 페이지를 운영하는 것을 보면, 그가 그것이 저작권 침해임을 몰랐다는 것은 상상도 할 수 없을 것 같다.바콘드럼 (토크) 04:02, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:TM2042

블레어 코트렐에 대해 TM2042에 의한 반달리즘을 반복하여 (Redacted)에 대한 비난을 포함하여 근거 없는/미확고한 주장을 반복한다.노골적인 공공 기물 파손 행위.바콘드럼 (토크) 04:40, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

막혔다.그러나 이 페이지를 편집할 때마다 나타나는 큰 배너를 읽으십시오.사생활과 관련된 문제 또는 명예훼손/명예훼손 가능성이 있는 사안에 대해서는 여기에 게시하지 마십시오.닌자로봇피리테 (토크) 05:06, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

알았어, 고마워.바콘드럼 (토크) 05:13, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:테니스 색상1 및 편집

소스 제공에 관심이 없는 신규 사용자

• VitalSignal(토크 · 기여)

선의의 편집자로 보이지만, 템플릿을 무시하고 출처 없이 콘텐츠를 추가하기를 선호한다. 더 구체적으로, 이들의 '소스'는 무의미하다.나는 전쟁을 편집하지 않고 4단계 경고로 가는 것이 좋으니 어떤 지원도 거창할 것이다.2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (대화) 17:42, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그리고 개정/삭제가 필요할 수 있는 명백한 사소한 저작권 위반 [45].2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (대화) 17:48, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 내가 수정본을 삭제했는데 다른 관리자가 편집 중단을 위한 짧은 블록을 발행했어.보고해줘서 고마워.— 다이애나비 (대화) 19:02, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 두 분 모두에게 감사드린다.2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (대화) 19:03, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
      • PS 환영 인사 템플릿을 사용하여 사용자 대화 페이지에 몇 가지 유용한 링크를 추가했다.— 다이애나 🍁 (대화) 19:04, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Pmoore2222 COI

User talk에서 과거에 반복된 경고에도 불구하고Pmoore22, 이 사용자는 다시 심각한 COI 문제를 제기하는 방식으로 편집하고 있다.2009년 4월 1일로 거슬러 올라가는 그의 사용자 기여도 전체 목록은 오직 자신의 바이오로 보이는 것에 대한 편집만으로 구성되어 있다는 점에 유의한다.네드파우사 (대화) 21:33, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그는 이 편집 요약과 2011년에 다시 차단해달라는 그의 토크 페이지 편집을 통해 자신이 패트릭 무어(컨설턴트)라는 것을 확인한 것으로 보인다.2011년 그가 차단을 받지 않았을 때, 그것은 사용자 공간에서만 편집하는 조건이었다.User_talk:를 참조하십시오.Pmoore22#COI.그는 비록 거의 9년 전이지만 지금은 그 협정을 위반하고 있다.@물리학자: 물질과학자가 당시 차단/차단되지 않은 관리자였던 것처럼 대화에 핑핑. --Hammersoft (대화) 22:49, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이틀이 지나도록 그에게서 더 이상의 활동은 일어나지 않았다.나는 이 문제와 관련하여 그에게 장문의 메모를 올렸다. 왜냐하면 그가 이 실을 보관하기 전에 볼 것 같지 않기 때문이다.나는 그 기사를 보고 그의 토크 페이지를 보고 있다.그가 우리와 함께 일할 수 있기를 바라며, 우리에게 불리하지 않기를 바란다. --Hammersoft (대화) 15:21, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 사용자는 자신의 토크 페이지를 단 한 번만 사용해 본 적이 있다. --JBL (토크) 21:11, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

불가침헐크의 서명

LTA

LTA에서 경험한 사람?나는 오랫동안 리스팸메이터를 등록하고 싶다.가이 (도움말!) 23:32, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Bbb23이 최고다.라이트버스트 (대화) 23:36, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

스프레이캔이랑 스텐실 있어?나르키 블러트 (대화) 01:16, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[답글]

98.111.189.131

98.111.189.131 (토크 · 기여)는 반복된 (레벨 4) 경고에도 불구하고, 멈추지 않는 반달리즘만 편집하고 있다... - 아돌푸스79 (토크) 04:11, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

IP는 총 5개의 편집이 있는데, 그 중 4개는 최근 20분 동안 편집되었다.그들은 최종 경고 이후 편집하지 않았다.다른 문제가 있으면 다시 보고하십시오.조누니크 (대화) 04:19, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

IP에 의한 명백한 법적 위협

IP 사용자 98.208.64.39는 사용자 대화에 법적 위협으로 보이는 것을 게시했다.토비프리(ToBeFree)는 한 블록에 대한 대응으로, "나는 당신을 보고할 것이다. 위키피디아와 당신 나라의 독일 관련 당국 모두에게 이런 일이 다시 일어나면 좋겠다"고 위협했다.PohranicniStraze (대화) 02:44, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

ANI 기반 블록 이후의 법적 위협

특별 참조:Diff/934168029, Special:리디렉션/logid/104638690. ~ ToBeFree(토크) 02:45, 2020년 1월 5일(UTC)[응답]

섹션 병합 중. 포흐라니크리스트라즈~ ToBeFree (토크) 02:46, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

이제 조금 더 차단되었다.토비프리, 내 변호사가 운동 중에 275파운드를 들어 올린 걸 페이스북에서 봤는데, 내가 연락할게.드레이미스 (토크) 02:49, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

~ ToBeFree (토크) 03:38, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자가 회사 페이지를 삭제하지 않음

안녕.

나는 Comsec의 마케팅 책임자인 Shira야.나는 삭제요청 절차를 두 번이나 따랐고, 편집자는 다음과 같이 썼다.Comsec Consulting에서 했던 것처럼 위키백과의 비파괴적인 편집을 삼가십시오.당신의 편집은 지장을 초래하는 것으로 보이며, 그 이전으로 되돌아가거나 다시 되돌릴 것이다.

우리 매니지먼트팀은 컴섹에 위키 페이지가 있는 것에 관심이 없어서 삭제를 요청한 겁니다.나는 이 요청을 다른 방법으로 전달하기 위해 몇 시간을 보냈다.개인 회사로서, 우리는 할 수 있는 선택권이 있어야 한다.이것 좀 도와주시겠습니까?

정말 감사합니다.Best, Shira — 212.235.30.250 (대화) 12:58, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]이 서명되지 않은 앞선 의견 추가

• 불행히도 위키피디아에서는 이런 식으로 삭제가 되지 않는다.기사를 삭제하려고 했던 이전 두 번의 시도에서 당신은 먼저 기사를 비우고 나서(파괴적이고, 어쨌든 삭제하지 않는다) PROD 템플릿을 사용했는데, 이는 명백히 읽을 수 없는 기사만을 위한 것이다.삭제해야 할 타당한 이유는 WP에 있다.DEL#Reason은 그렇게 하기를 원하는 피험자의 소원을 포함하지 않는다.WP:AFD, 그러나 기사를 보면 WP에 의해 주목할 만한 내용일 것이다.따라서 COPR은 삭제에 대한 합의를 얻지 못할 것이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 13:07, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

(EC) 나는 이것이 Comsec Consulting에 관한 것이라고 생각한다.솔직히 말하면, 우리는 당신의 경영진이 무엇이든지 관심없든 상관하지 않는다.개인 회사로서 당신은 명예훼손과 유사성에 관한 몇 가지 극히 제한적인 예외를 제외하고는 다른 사람들이 당신의 회사에 대해 쓰는 것을 지시할 수 없다. 그러나 단순히 당신의 회사의 존재에 대해 쓰는 것만으로 명예훼손으로 간주되지 않는다.즉, 개인 웹사이트로서, 우리는 우리가 하고 쓰지 않는 것에 대해 선택하게 된다.WP 1회:PROD가 제거되었으므로 다시 추가하지 마십시오.당신의 유일한 선택은 그것을 WP에 가져가는 것이다.AFD. 하지만 당신의 경영진이 그 기사를 원하지 않는다는 이유로 AFD에 가져가면 실패할 것이다.귀사가 저희 WP와 만날지 안 만날지는 기사에서 잘 모르겠다.GNG 또는 위키백과:공신력(조직 및 기업)비록 소싱이 제한적으로 보이긴 하지만, 나는 충분한 신뢰할 수 있는 2차 소스 커버리지가 있을 수 있다는 것을 암시하는 몇몇 정보를 본다.그럼에도 불구하고, 이는 WP를 가진 귀하가 아닌 당사의 소싱 요구사항을 잘 알고 있는 사람이 가장 잘 평가할 수 있다.경영진이 마음에 안 들어서 그냥 페이지 넘기고 싶은 COI.닐 아인 (대화) 13:12, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

Nil Einne, 이건 신참들을 물어뜯고 너무 공격적이야.제발 그만해.댄BCDANBC (대화) 18:41, 2020년 1월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 닐의 편집이 독설적이거나 공격적이었다는 것을 보지 못하지만, 백과사전 기사는 누구의 마케팅 프로그램에도 속하지 않기 때문에 그들의 피험자의 통제 하에 있지 않다는 것을 간단히 철자하여 말한다.오직 완곡한 어투로 사람들을 속이기보다는 이것을 분명히 말하는 것이 더 낫다.필 브리저 (대화) 19:40, 2020년 1월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

• 위키백과 참조:삭제/Comsec Consulting에 대한 문서, 사용자 제공:미쉐프먼.——SN54129 13:19, 2020년 1월 2일(UTC)[응답]

몇 년 전, 한 개인이 자신의 바이오 기사를 삭제하는 데 성공했다.그 개인은 위키피디아에 대해 알려진 비평가였다.PS - 동료들의 이름이 기억나지 않는다.굿데이 (토크) 13:21, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

BLP는 위키백과의 비평가들에게도 적용된다고?!;)——SN54129 13:26, 2020년 1월 2일(UTC)[응답]

그 친구가 위키백과 워치를 창시했을 겁니다.굿데이 (토크) 13:29, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

좋은 날이야, 다니엘 브랜트.가이(도움말!) 13:30, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

응. 굿데이 (토크) 13:31, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE 및 WP:바이오디펠트, 살아있는 사람들의 전기들은 기본적으로 매우 제한된 환경에서 기사 삭제에 관한 한 대상의 소망을 고려하는 유일한 영역이다.닐 아인 (대화) 13:36, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

BTW, 페이지가 원래 User:에 의해 작성되었다는 것이 흥미롭다.샤르1R[46], 다른 주요 기고문인 편집자는 다른 이스라엘 회사 기가지스페이스[47]와 그들의 제품 중 하나인 Cloudify[48]와 일부 이스라엘 밴드 Nikmat HaTractor[49]에 대한 기사를 작성하고 있는 것으로 보인다.간단히 말해, 이것은 한때 어떤 회사가 자신들에 대해 쓰여질 기사를 나중에 후회하기 위해 지불하는 것이 좋은 생각이라고 생각한 첫 번째가 아닐 것이다.비록 이것이 여기서 일어난 일이었다면, 나는 그 기사에 관한 정보가 지금 회사가 하는 일과 완전히 일치하는지 여부에 관계없이, 그 기사에 대해 그다지 나쁜 것은 보지 않는다.닐 아인 (대화) 13:36, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• Comment 이 문제들은 삭제 토론을 위한 기사를 여는 것만으로 쉽게 해결된다.시라, 우리는 공신력을 증명할 수 있는 곳에 기사를 보관한다.충분한 편집자가 삭제 공감대를 이룰 수 있다면 기사는 삭제될 것이다.Eliteplus (대화) 17:03, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

  네가 풀었다는 게 무슨 뜻인지에 따라 다르겠지AFD의 방향으로는 기사가 삭제될 것 같지 않다.그래서 OP의 이전 의견을 고려할 때, 그들이 그것을 받아들일 수 있는 해결책으로 여길지 확신할 수 없다.그래도 그들이 우리의 변호사를 승선시키고 그들이 행복하지 않더라도 그것이 이곳의 일이 돌아가는 방식이라는 것을 받아들이기를 바랍시다.닐 아인 (대화) 12:58, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[답글]

크로아티아 공군의 끈질긴 분쟁

외출 시도인 것 같은 AIV 보고서를 삭제한 뒤 그 밑바탕에 깔린 갈등을 살펴봤다.특수와 같은 차이:Diff/934031454, 특수:Diff/934032086 및 특수:Diff/924187200은 FOX 52와 적어도 하나의 IP 편집기 사이의 장기적인 충돌을 나타내는 것으로 보인다.

FOX 52, 아마 여기서 잠시 시간을 내어 상황을 설명해 주시겠습니까?WP의 최신 에스컬레이션:AIV는 그러한 논의의 필요성을 나타내는 것으로 보이며, 반복적으로 당신을 공격하고 있는 것으로 보이는 사용자에 대한 커뮤니티 금지나 차단으로 이어질 가능성이 있다.WP:ASPERSION은 예를 들어 관련이 있는 것 같다.~ ToBeFree (토크) 15:55, 2020년 1월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

내 생각으로는, 그것은 (한 개인일 수도 있는) 몇몇 IP와 끊임없는 싸움이었다 - 그들은 시대에 뒤떨어진/비영어의 출처를 사용하는 것과, 업데이트된 영어 소싱을 사용하는 것에 대해 불만을 갖고 있는 것 같다.(per: WP:NONENG) - 페이지에 장기적인 반보호론을 제안한다- FOX 52 (대화) 04:34, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

Talk에서의 감독:루마니아 역사 연표#토미스

Talk 감독:루마니아 역사 연표#토미스, WP는 없다.여기서 렌더링할 수 있도록 GOADING.Tgeorgescu (대화) 00:12, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

그곳의 어떤 것도 감시를 요하는 수준으로 올라가지 않는다.IP의 토크 페이지에 NPA 경고를 떨어뜨렸어.블랙매인 (대화) 00:29, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

@Blackmane:그래, 잘 알겠다.로위키 외설과 인신공격은 보통 대중의 시야에서 가려진다.Tgeorgescu (대화) 00:40, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

@Blackmane:아, 그래, 범인은 93.122.250.147(토크 · 기여 · WHOIS)이다.Tgeorgescu (대화) 00:43, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

@Tgeorgescu: en.wp에 대한 감독에 대한 매우 구체적인 요구사항이 있다. WP:를 참조하십시오.감독.또한 감독 요청은 감독 요청 이메일에 전송되어야 하며 ANI. Blackmane (토크) 05:15, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]과 같은 매우 공개적인 페이지에는 전송되어서는 안 된다.

리브델드(revdeld)일 수 있다.-- Deepfriedokra 05:37, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것을 망쳤다.모든 것을 멈추려면 엄청나게 큰 블록이 필요할 것 같다.깨끗한 버전이 없기 때문에 나는 그것이 보관되어야 한다고 생각하지만 잃어버리지 않기 위해 리브델을 하지 않았다.147명이 충분히 경고를 받았다면 막을 수 있을 것이다.-- 딥프리도크라 05:45, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

147의 마지막 편집은 1월 1일이었으므로 지금 차단하지 않을 것이다.-- 딥프리도크라 05:47, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

AWB를 사용하여 최대 1,500페이지에 대한 논의되지 않은 변경 사항

2019년 12월 11일 콰미카가미(토크·기여)가 일방적으로 ⟨²⟩를 ⟨²² on Help:IPA/스웨덴어 및 도움말:IPA/노르웨이어(Norwegian)이며, {{}{{{}} 안에 기호가 들어 있는 페이지를 약 1,500개 편집했다.AutoWikiBrowser를 사용하는 IPA-sv} 또는 {{IPA-no}} MOS:PRON#IPA 키 변경에 대해 미리 논의하라는 다른 언어의 권장 사항에도 불구하고.콰미카가미도 몇 달 전에 논의 끝에 ⟨¹⟩이 소개되었음에도 불구하고 일방적으로 스웨덴어 필사본의 ⟨¹⟩를 ⟨ˈ⟩으로 변경하였다.사용자는 이러한 변경에 대한 공감대를 지적해 달라는 질문에 "IPA에 IPA를 활용한다는 공감대가 형성돼 있다"고 답하면서도 구체적인 정책이나 가이드라인, 논의 내용은 밝히지 않았다.

⟨²⟩의 도입도 명시적인 합의(그러나 그럼에도 불구하고 두 편집자가 토론하고 합의)에 근거한 것이 아니었지만, 3년 이상 그렇게 많은 페이지에서 사용되어 왔다는 사실은 암묵적이면서도 잘 확립된 합의점을 보여준다.나는 헬프토크에서 이 문제에 대한 코멘트를 요청했다.IPA/스웨덴어, 최근 스웨덴 가이드를 편집하거나 논의한 사용자 10명을 핑핑하고, 새로운 ⟨ˇˇ에 찬성하는 사람은 한 명도 나오지 않았으며, 이에 대해 3명이 명시적으로 반대 의사를 밝혔다.

나는 단순히 가이드나 소수의 페이지에만 변경이 이루어진다면 BRD를 적용하고 싶지만, 그것들의 순전한 스케일로 인해 나는 그것들을 되돌리는 것을 꺼려하고 있고 대규모 편집 전쟁을 일으킬 위험을 무릅쓰고 있다.나는 콰미카가미가 먼저 다른 사람들과 상의하지 않고 이러한 변화를 할 수 있도록 허용되었는지, 그리고 그들의 특권, 특히 AWB를 지켜야 하는지 묻고 싶다.나독 (대화) 06:39, 2020년 1월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

기본적으로 IPA 템플릿은 IPA에 있어야 하며, 그렇지 않으면 독자들에게 오해를 일으킬 수 있다.사내 컨벤션으로 대체하고 싶은 편집자를 언제든지 찾을 수 있지만, 그런 벽이 있는 정원의 사용은 전 세계적인 범위의 백과사전에 해가 된다.우리는 아시아, 미국 또는 아프리카 언어에서 음색을 위해 숫자를 사용해서는 안 된다는 합의를 오랫동안 해 왔다.가짜 IPA 음색이 계속 사용되는 것은 몇 개의 유럽 언어에 불과하다.이 경우 IPA 자체의 여러 간행물에서는 스웨덴어와 노르웨이의 두 가지 톤에 대해 이러한 문자를 명시적으로 추천한다.데이트는 했지만 적어도 사실 틀리진 않았어.나는 왜 IPA를 실제로 IPA로 수정하는 것이 다른 어떤 오류보다 사전 허가가 필요한지 모르겠다.— kwami (토크) 05:01, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

이미 토크 페이지에서 사람들이 동의하지 않았을 것이라는 점을 분명히 밝혔을 때 나는 그런 대규모 변화를 좋아하는 사람이 아니다.한편, 나는 콰미의 대량 편집에 대해 너무 비판하기를 주저한다.만약 편집자가 그 문제에 대해 토론할 의사가 있다면, 아마도 그들은 토론이 처음에 동의하지 않았던 의견의 일치를 향해 나아간다면, 그들 자신의 대규모 변화도 기꺼이 수정할 것이다.AGF는 우리에게 명백한 증거 없이 다른 편집자들에 대해 이것을 믿도록 촉구한다.나는 콰미가 개인적으로 동의하지 않는 합의를 실행한 사례를 여러 번 본 적이 있다.

만약 다른 사람들이 Gwami를 BRD의 서사시 게임으로 처벌할 것을 기대하거나, 심지어 더 나쁜 것은, 만약 합의가 그들의 입장을 거스르면, 그들이 자기반복할 것이라고 분명히 말하도록 기대한다면, 나는 적어도 우리가 이것과 함께 상당히 강한 불신을 가지고 있다는 것을 인정할 수 있기를 바란다.— µ§œ 14:47, 2020년 1월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

@Kwamikagami:Help talk에서 할 말 다 하셨습니다.IPA/스웨덴어, 그리고 혼자 서 있는게 확실해.만족이 아니라 행실을 논하는 자리인 여기서 되풀이하는 것은 자신에게 유리한 바늘을 움직이지 않을 것이다.만약 내가 WP를 기리기 위해 당신의 과감한 편집을 되돌린다면, 전쟁을 편집하지 않겠다고 약속할 수 있는가?BRD, 아니면 Aeusoes1이 제안한 대로 직접 되돌리는 것이 좋을까?(IPA-sv의 비차별적인 대체는 핀란드계 스웨덴인이기 때문에 하지 않을 것이며, 아직도 ⟨ˈ⟩을 사용해야 한다.) 나독(토크) 10:19, 2020년 1월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

윔 딩글은 다른 계정으로 새로 온 척한다.

72.185.118.31

72.185.118.31 (talk · contribs) seems to have made only disruptive edits. These last days he has been warned a few times not to make WP:ERA changes. See also the telling change he made (twice) to his talkpage,[63] proving that he is not willing to abide by our MOS guidelines on this issue. Perhaps it is time to block this editor for a month or so, just to get the point across? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin response: Looking through their talk page and contributions, I wonder if this user is interested in being here to build an encyclopedia or here to cause disruption. After continuing to maintain a disruptive presence after being blocked, it seems that this user creates more work for others rather than improving WP. Perhaps they need a longer block or blocked indefinitely.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Together with CaroleHenson's message, perhaps this will talk some sense into this editor. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2001:E68:540E:8007:FC2D:19D:2A9B:5C48

user:2001:E68:540E:8007:FC2D:19D:2A9B:5C48 is adding unsourced content after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whydopeoplebother

User:Whydopeoplebother keeps removing or refactoring other users' talk page comments at Talk:Video game exploit. He has been warned by me and User:S0091 to quit, but has blanked his talk page of the warnings and has continued his behavior. His userpage states "A veteran gamer of 30+ years and an experienced game designer. I won't bother replying to complaints about edits, I only remove misinformation and provide more accurate diagnostics. Don't like it? too bad. I'm here to provide educational material, not comply to the bias of the toxic or uninformed." Can an admin try to discuss this with this user, as warnings have not solved the issue? Hog Farm (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and blocked them for 31 hours, with an explanatory note. The user page pretty well says it all. Perhaps someone with better interpersonal skills can reach them.-- Deepfriedokra 05:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I have left a friendly note on their talk, hopefully that will engage a dialogue. Captain Eek^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although point blank removing the comments was clearly inappropriate, I'm not sure that any of those comments are useful for further development of the article. And as they are now all at least 10 years old, I've archived them all. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User blanked their talkpage. They do not seem to be interested in communication.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that too. Pinging Hog Farm so they are aware as well. Appreciate the effort CaptainEek and Nil Einne. Not sure where to go with this now. Wait and see? S0091 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess just wait out the block and see what the user does after the block expires? Maybe since the talk page comments they were riled up about were archived, the user will desist. Hog Farm (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I would say yes. Editors who refuse to communicate are frustrating and not editing with the collaborative spirit required but I'm reluctant to advocate a block for it unless it's causing problems. The talk page issue is hopefully resolved now that I archived the page. I wasn't aware the editor was also edit warring on the article until now. If they return to that when their block expires, then I longer block is likely in order. If not, we can only hope they don't repeat similar problems elsewhere, and also start to communicate a lot better. If they do earn another block, I would support quick escalation given that their lack of communication makes it difficult to know if they are going to improve. Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one positive is that we know they saw the messages. Hopefully something will sink in. Fingers crossed, anyway. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the edits in Ashina tribe and Göktürks page by Hunan201p

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]

@Sphilbrick: apologies if you've already seen my above comment, but please could you also do a compare to the other article they've created vs. the previous deleted one? I know it seems trivial, but I'm pretty sure it's the same editor. Thanks. Lugnuts^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, Sorry, I'm not following. I think the other article they created is Modhura Palit. You want to know if that compares to what other article? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user inserting fake names to BLP articles

Rolleygiacalone is repeatedly adding letters to people's names or simply changing names on BLP articles. To put it bluntly, they seem to be mostly just making shit up. Here in one of their latest additions we see them changing the name of the person the article is about from "Nellee Hooper" to "Paul Andrew "Nellee" Hooper" without any source or any mention of this name in the rest of the article. Further examples can be found here, here, here, here & here. This disruption has been going on for some time across many articles as can be seen on their contributions page and despite my repeated warnings and personal pleas they continue regardless. It should also be noted that they do not seem receptive at all to discussing their disruptive behavior. Please could an admin cast an eye. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user; I don't think they are aware of their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 331dot! Besides the reversion edit summaries I gave, do you not think they receive a red notification and yellow bar at the top of the page notifying them? It also seems weird that they discovered their user page but not their talk page. Regardless, I'll keep an eye. Thanks again. Robvanvee 16:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robvanvee It's possible they weren't aware of the message or what they state. People view webpages in different ways. What is obvious to you or me is completely obscure to others. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that although the editor's changes are inappropriate due to the lack of sources, I don't think they're making stuff up. For example, in the Simon Law case, our article currently says sometimes credited as Simon A. Law and a quick search finds non RS stuff like [65]. "Nellee" sounds a lot like a stage name to me and a quick search finds non RS or other unsuitable sources like [66] and a company record. Bernard Sumner I found [67]. Rolleygiacalone could have added to IMDb but more likely they got it from IMDb. (The other name also appeared on IMDb for Nellee.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should clarify I'm not suggesting any different course of action because of this. The opposite in fact. If the editor were making stuff up, frankly we probably should be considering an indef or at least final warning. Since they just appearing to be just appear to be adding stuff which is potentially true and at least didn't originate from them, but without adding suitable sources (which may not even exist); we should be more tolerant and try and help them understand our requirements so they can become a good editor. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah perhaps due to my frustration I did jump to conclusions and as such have struck that comment. Thanks for clearing that up Nil but as you say non RS so I guess it becomes a BLP issue. I'll keep an eye on this user and if this persists I'll re-attempt to explain. Thanks all. Robvanvee 15:46, 6 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]

• This looks like trolling. Are we sure this isn't an LTA? Guy (help!) 18:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given this edit, it's fairly obvious that they're the same person. Per this edit in which the PhoenixSummon account claims to be hacked, I'm indefinitely blocking both. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass rollback?

I can't make Writkeeper's script work or I'd probably do it myself. User:2001:8003:55CB:7101:F1C8:257C:B1B:8A27 started by reverting a talk page post by User:Supreme Deliciousness on something irrelevant to Israel[68] and then proceeded to revert more talk page and article edits by the same editor, add the word "Israel" after "Jerusalem" multiple times, and a few ARBPIA violations. I don't see any constructive edits at all and have blocked their spree(eg at times 4 edits per minute). Is there anyone here who can do a mass rollback (or fix mine!)? Doug Weller talk 15:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: when I just checked there were only 4 pages where 2001...'s edit was the current revision, I just used undo on them. — xaosflux^Talk 15:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback script worked for me ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. @Justlettersandnumbers: I've probably put it on the wrong subpage or maybe it's conflicting with something. I know the ARB function in Twinkle always gives me an error message (although it works when I reload) and I get edit conflict messages at times when I've saved with no actual edit conflict. Doug Wellertalk 15:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I'm probably the single worst-informed person here when it comes to user scripts; for reasons I can no longer remember I have that particular one in my global Custom JavaScript thingy, even though I only use it here. That seems to work for me, so might for you too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly hijacked account vandalising Northern Ireland issues

I came across @Lottolads: after he vandalised my user page. Upon further review of his edits, it seems he has been recently vandalising certain Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland related pages. Including this most recent one on Unionist politician Paul Girvan here, which in my opinion is bordering on libellous. I suspect this account may have been hijacked so can I ask if admins can investigate please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except for your talk page edit, the recent edits of the user look more like extreme POV than vandalism to me (with the disclaimer that I understand little in Irish / Northern Irish / Scottish politics), which, however, does not make them more acceptable. Let us hope that the user would come here to explain themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that The C of E links to isn't purely explainable as PoV editing – changing the party a politician is affiliated with is at best incompetence, but when it is from the DUP to Sinn Fein it does look rather more like vandalism. Coupled with changing his political positions described, his nationality from British to Irish, and inserting a claim that he is Catholic (highly unlikely for a DUP MP!), this definitely looks like vandalism. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And doing a little digging: here Lottolads adds a controversial and unsourced claim to Democratic Unionist Party, and here we have the addition of an unsourced claim to a BLP that someone is an Irish Nationalist. That's just looking at Lottolads' most recent 50 contributions – it looks like there may be a problem with Irish Nationalism-related topics, which is an area under discretionary sanctions. (Although as far as I can see, they haven't received the DS notification...) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long-standing user who has not previously, to my investigation, demonstrated these problems before. I would suspect a possible compromised account, given that. However, the user is ALSO clearly interested in Irish topics since they started editing back on 2015, so perhaps not. --Jayron32 13:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Lottolad's (smallish number of) edits look merely WP:POVvy, but the linked edit on Paul Girvan was outrageous: changing country of birth from one to another (Northern Ireland to Ireland), his political party from one end of the spectrum to the other (Democratic Unionist Party to Sinn Féin), and reversing his stance on same-sex marriage from opposition to support, directly contradicting the sources. Narky Blert (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked Lottolads. Lottolads has a history of logged-out vandalism, and it looks like the editor has decided not to be so sneaky about it any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of not noticing they were logged out as happens with many, an editor failed to notice they were still logged in? Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's their little brother/sister/dog.-- Deepfriedokra 22:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PAustin4thApril1980 Reported by Alcibiades979 for Racism

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

• Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) went through an AfD and finished as a Keep December 14th, 2019. The AfD the nominator (User:Doncram) was tendentious in the AfD responding to every !voter. And after the AfD the editor redirected the article saying it was discussed at AfD. Now the editor is edit warring to keep their preferred version of the article.

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.

• Support as Nominator. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Comment I'd just point out that the AfD was closed by a sock of a banned user, if that makes a difference. Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 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 (example [[72]]; in this case "falsification" means not having the supplementary tables of one source and reporting the same information as relied in another source that directly cites it)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]

• Reyk, I have nothing against a default to protect when an article is turned into a redirect by XfD. Guy (help!) 19:23, 5 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]

As long as you restrict discussions to article talk pages, you're effectively restricting them to fans or wikiproject participants. And they're going to primarily vote to keep cruft as expansive and crufty as possible. That's why some people don't like taking these issues to a wider and more unbiased audience. Accusations of self promotion are just one of many dubious attacks on deletion nominators. Reyk _YO! 12:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Phil Bridger, yet we have redirects for discussion and the like. I don't see a problem discussing a terrible article at XfD and deciding whether to delete, draftify, stub, redirect or keep. It gets more eyes on the article, which is mainly what's needed, and none of the other mechanisms for trying to achieve that have half as much success. Guy (help!) 19:24, 5 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]

Nil Einne, why not? It's a good way of establishing an unambiguous consensus that the topic does not stand alone. Guy(help!) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: As the article is not going to be deleted, there is no need to use an AfD which is explicitly structured to determine if the article should be deleted and therefore only accessible to admins. An RfC can be used and there is no reason why an RfC consensus will be more ambigious. Actually, it may be more ambigious since editors may not properly consider the issue of redirecting the article. (If someone sees an article and the topic is clearly notable, they're probably going to say "keep, clearly notable per the sources" especially if no one has suggested a redirect already.) If AfDs were good at establishing unambigious consensuses on redirection then frankly we should be considering a topic ban on DonCram since they weren't aware that the discussion was never actually closed so they were ignoring the unambigious consensus against a redirect. Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, equally one could argue that the primary purpose of AfD is to decide whether a topic is notable. And that is exactly the nature of such a debate. I have no view on Doncram right now. Guy(help!) 20:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: but plenty of people are saying it is notable, but support a redirect nevertheless which is a key point. Just because something is notable doesn't mean we should have a standalone article about it. Anyway I mostly came back to say that sometimes the WP:Merging process may better than an RfC. The only other thing I'll say is IMO there is an important reason why it's Redirects for discussions but Articles for deletion]. AfD should generally only be used for deletion discussion not more generic discussion on what to do with a page. Better process are available. And there's a key reason here. As a non admin, I cannot boldly delete a page, or undelete it. (I can recreate a deleted page but I should never use any material from the deleted one for attribution reasons.) Admins who can, shouldn't generally bold do so either. However it is fully acceptable to boldly redirect a page or turn a redirect into a full fledged article (or reverse an old redirect) in some cases, in part because from a technical standpoint, the result is very different. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, yes, BOLD is OK, but I don't think we can say that AfD is wrong when redirect / smerge / whatever would be an acceptable outcome, I think a lot of people view redirect as a kind of deletion so prefer to see an AfD debate. I think it's one of those issues on which reasonable people can disagree, Guy (help!) 10:11, 7 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]

  @MJL: No not really. Yes there is some unnecessary heat in that discussion. But it also wasn't closed by a sock. Ultimately that's enough to establish it's a better outcome than the alternative. Also, if we want to get technical, despite the unnecessary heat in that discussion, it has way more participation than it did before, and most participants are not taking part in the heat. (Well frankly most new participants came before the heat really developed.) So the likely outcome is a more stable and well supported consensus, or establishing that there is no consensus. Of course, and I can't emphasise this enough. When it is closed, it's most likely not going to be closed by a sock, so by definition, a better outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 5 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]

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]

Thanks for the positive comment!Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 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]

Levivich, perhaps there are some underlying issues - but I'm not sure we need to see it as being at boiling point, if we all take a step back. In this thread, and at the AfD discussion, and elsewhere, some people have been getting quite frustrated/angry, possibly to the point of personalising some of the issues (FWIW, I don't count you amongst those people). The issues that you have been describing though are not really what triggered this thread, which was a specific complaint against a specific editor. You're describing a broader issue, and if we are to discuss that, I think it needs to be framed carefully, so that we're not basing it around a particular AfD discussion, or singling out individuals for criticism that's really targeting at the culture more generally. Please read my 'let's go down the pub' comment above as 'let's take the heat out of this particular argument, remember that we're all on the same side really, and maybe have a civil (friendly even?) conversation about it somewhere else'. I'm not sure where that somewhere else needs to be, and I'd be interested in participating in that discussion - but I'd really like it not to be a battleground, if we can achieve that. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, to the pub it is ! :-) – Levivich 21:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit That is why I voted for you. And why I would not vote for certain other axe-grinders. I knew you would make a good admin. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: If Lightburst could restrain himself from trolling editors on their own talkpages—Levivich's, CaroleHenson's and my own, just for three–that would be a start. It would certainly improve the atmosphere around that AfD which LB, while rightfully noting its toxicity, abrogates all responsibility for that ste of affairs. ——SN54129 13:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now discussion on a talk page is trolling? Here is my discussion on CH talk page Reasonable editors having a rationale conversation. As to your talk page, it devolved because of your aspersions. The same with Levivich, and so I departed those conversations saying we should steer clear of each other. You should refrain from using the word trolling if you do not know the meaning. The above comment by you fits the definition of trolling. Lightburst (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, and as an epitome of trolling, I give you your reply to Levivich below, The only reason you "left" these multiple talk-page discussions-which you started even though the AfD had effectively fragmented over three WP: pages already—is because you realised you would recieve no traction whatsoever. Levivich disected your position forensically: you refused to consider that he made a valid point; you tried to tell me I waws WP:NOTHERE, and I—comprehensively—enjoined accuracy upon you; you tried to bully CaroleHenson (Stop Please leave it be (bolding yours) with some of the most patronising commentary I have encountered in a long time ("cooler heads will prevail"? Really? I think Carole's is one of the most reasonable and coolest-of-heads here). Your repeated demands for good faith—while referring to editor's opinions as idiotic and being axe-grinders—demonstrates nothing but your own depth of good faith. ——SN54129 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly Every AFD that the "Article Rescue Squadron" becomes involved in devolves into this kind of bad blood. At least three of them will show up, !Vote "Keep" with some non-rational like "WP:BEFORE" and "WP:NOTPAPER". When the !vote starts going against them they start attacking the integrity of other users. First by pointedly saying something like "I'm going to AGF about your actions" which is a self-contradiction, then when that doesn't work, by throwing away the pretense of AGF and accusing people of intentionally trying to destroy articles. ApLundell (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some concrete examples of your idiotic accusations that Nearly Every AFD that the "Article Rescue Squadron" becomes involved in devolves into this kind of bad blood and attacking the integrity of other users _ the archives are available for all to see. You seem to be just blathering and flailing and you have a friendly audience of other drama seekers who cosign your rubbish. I can provide several examples of your un-collegial following of ARS simply to vote obstinately. Good day! Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"... throwing away the pretense of AGF and accusing people of intentionally trying to destroy articles" can be seen right here in this thread, where 13 writes The conduct of the AFD participants and their vandalization/Bowdlerization/destruction/rewrite, and LB says other axe-grinders. It's hard to go to the pub with people who attack you like that. – Levivich 19:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Levivich. You are likely on your way to becoming an administrator as you seem to desire. I will be a hard NO !vote based on your irrational statements as of late. You are the axe grinder. I hope you find your way out of this anti-ARS malaise and decide that working together is better than expecting others to catch pearls of wisdom falling from your lips. Lightburst (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, that post contains a personal attack, and to be honest, speculation about someone else's desires and intentions is beneath you. I hope you'll strike it or remove the whole thing yourself. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like my local on a Saturday night. ——SN54129 19:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it seems like there is something here that we should talk about. I don't think that this thread is the place to do it though - it's already massively long, and we're not really talking about the thing we started out with. Since the pub seems to have been built at the bottom of a lake, and it's hard to talk with scuba gear in your mouth, here are a couple of 'straws in the wind' ideas on how to proceed:

• If you think these a broad issues with the culture of behaviour within ARS, start a thread at WT:ARS, outlining the concerns, and giving examples of discussions that got heated and unpleasant. Advertise the discussion in relevant places, and see whether we can get a conversation going and build a firm consensus on how to interpret the ground rules for this kind of contentious deletion discussion. I've had some very good interactions with ARS members in the past, including times when they have worked on and 'saved' articles I had nominated for deletion - these things don't need to be unpleasant, but they need a big dose of civility, AGF and general not-being-a-jerk-about-it on both sides. I know the necessary rules already exist, but people are interpreting them in different ways, and a discussion about the problems might go somewhere.
• Or... if you feel there are specific individuals unambiguously breaking rules, then name the individuals rather than addressing this at the entire team of ARS volunteers, and start a new thread here with diffs, which can be considered individually.

That's my tuppence worth anyway. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent broad discussion at VPR in November, and ANIs in August and June, an MFD in June, a 2018 ANI, and atleastfourANIs and an RFC in 2012, a 2009 MFD (that was the 4th nomination), and a 2007 ANI, among others. I've taken my concerns to specific editors on various talk pages already, and I'm sure things will turn around any minute now. :-) – Levivich 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, thanks for that history, which I was unaware of. I've got some thoughts about some of it, but I probably need to do a bit more thinking, and as I've already said, I don't think this thread is the place for it - I'll probably swing by your talk page at some point. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

39.32.220.50

user:39.32.220.50 just violated the BLP rule after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like you told them what the problem was. Your warning said they were entering defamatory information. I don't see that in their recent edits. Instead, please indicate what you see is the problem, and explain in detail what specific thing they are doing that you want them to stop. You and I both know that they are changing birth years, but you did not let them know this was the problem, so how are they supposed to know to stop that? Warning templates are poorly suited for this purpose, you should perhaps in the future just type out a direct message. --Jayron32 18:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: addition of potentially malicious material to computer security articles

I see that there is a pattern of IP editors adding potentially malicious material to Macro virus and other malware-related articles such as Trojan:Win32/Agent, Xor DDoS and Cydoor, of a sort that might be useful to tech support scammers. Some of it is actually happening in real time: see the history of Macro virus for an almost instant response to my revert.

I've reverted and protected articles and blocked recent spamming IPs, but there seems to have been a lot of this from multiple IPs over a long period of time. Please be aware of this, so we can take appropriate action to stop it in future. -- The Anome (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One for WP:VPT as well? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've posted it there as well. -- The Anome (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the sort of thing that should be revision deleted as well. Scammers can still use the old revisions to scam people. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible IP range block?

I have been editing articles that are related to the Pixel smartphones for the past 2 years. However, I have been noticing a similar IP range that has been giving undue weight to Pixel articles. This is bothersome as the edits maintain a consistent narrative. Pixel phones get their fair share of legit criticism from journalists but the IP range's editing behavior does not maintain NPOV.

I tried to narrow the range with the CIDR suffix, it seems this might be the IP range: 85.48.186.58/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

The edits have similar behaviors with reverts and edit summaries: [73] [74] [75] [76]

I'm also seeing similar behavior in the contribution history. I also understand /16 is pretty much specifying an ISP node (MediaWiki is telling me this is 65,536 IP addresses). Could anything be done in regards to curbing vandalism from the IP range? – The Grid (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixel edits seem to be coming from Special:Contributions/85.48.184.0/22 and Special:Contributions/90.174.0.0/21. But these edits are definitely not vandalism. Vandalism is when someone replaces an entire article with curse words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't state it was vandalism but I can see how you did with my usage of the {{IPvandal}} template. I couldn't really think of a better way to show the IP range links. I think the issue that points out the most is possible 3RR violations even when comments are addressed. The IP hopping prevents pinging or discussion except at the respective talk pages. The IP range is aware of the talk page as seen in Pixel 3 and Pixel 4. Would it be better to consult here or AN3 if this persists? – The Grid (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally called it vandalism in your previous edit: "Could anything be done in regards to curbing vandalism from the IP range?" If you want these IPs range blocked, you'll have to post evidence of disruption in the form of diffs. What I see so far is a content dispute, which you've mischaracterized as vandalism. Edit warring reports would best be resolved at WP:ANEW. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring by Human Taxonomist over multiple articles

2600:1702:3310:6C30:4B2:A034:E910:FEC5's edits

The user (2600:1702:3310:6C30:4B2:A034:E910:FEC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been changing dates on various articles without either using edit summaries or using the talk pages of the article(s) in question. Could someone take a look at their edits and possibly take action as needed. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocked and edits reverted. You can report vandals like this to WP:AIV next time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reported a logged-in editor to AIV for making (apparently random) changes to dates in biographies, and it was rejected as not being obvious vandalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening messages

Edit-warring on UK far-right politics

IP making bad edits

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#IP making bad edits. It appears this editor is back today making more well-intentioned edits. Twice they have changed {{infobox person}} to {{infobox writer}} which in itself is OK, but they have not fixed incompatible parameters. Once that have made the same incorrect edit to notableworks= . Today, it is 2600:1700:C970:1560:BD89:EFBC:5D40:33C6(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)MB 04:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long term edit warring, persistent restoration of content without consensus

• Halifax–Dartmouth Ferry Service (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

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 [101]. 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]

The IP jumped from Halifax Transit to the above article after Halifax Transit was protected. As I mentioned at Talk:Halifax Transit, this person keeps adding a section titled "Future Transit System". The content of this list originally constituted a hoax list of bus routes. On December 25, 2019, User:Debdeb18 re-added the list, but with different content. On January 4, 2020, the IP-hopper added the same list with this "new" content. Hence, I suspect Debdeb18 is the IP-hopper. The random list of bus routes added on the ferry article is the same as the hoax version of "Future Transit System". Ben MacLeod (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out part of my comment in light of a message User:Debdeb18 left on my talk page. Apologies to Debdeb18 for the misunderstanding/false accusation. Ben MacLeod (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of weird edits by Deedee123123123

• Deedee123123123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person is leaving a lot of weird edits. I fixed a few of them. Notice posted on their talk page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raquel Baranow: Could you be a bit more detailed in terms of the problem(s) you are seeing,, maybe with some diffs and which WP:PAG, if any, you see being violated? Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern seems to be edits to info boxes, short titles, changing dates, just about every edit they make is weird. Not one constructive edit! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) (ec) I reviewed the rest of their edits and fixed a couple more. They've now been almost universally reverted (one question (Talk:Masked Singer#Title) is pending for other editors, where they may have gotten something right). Many of the edits were wrong and self-reverted quickly, as though they were editing tests, though they were obviously/intentionally wrong and would be a problem if they had not been reverted (e.g. Special:Diff/908140651). This one was wrong for 5+ months until I fixed it. Not a big deal, really, but they haven't responded to template warnings on talk and don't seem to be able to contribute anything useful. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Could this be a sockpuppet of User:DawnoftheDeeDeeDee? aboideau^talk 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JMyrleFuller pattern of unsourced and WP:CBALL edits

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

Repeated addition of unsourced content and WP:CBALL edits. [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110] Multiple warnings on talk page to stop disruptive edits. This pattern of behavior has been exhibited over several years despite multiple warnings to stop. User continues to make multiple unsourced edits per day, even admitting on own talk page that he is editing without including WP:V sources. [111], 02:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine my entire edit history, you will note that the vast majority of my edits indeed include sources, and none have been intended to be disruptive. Furthermore, I have had multiple scuffles with my accuser over some edits even when I include sources, and many of the accusations of WP:CBALL are in fact not WP:CBALL, a point I have mentioned multiple times. The accuser's behavior is bordering on harassment, especially since I have not engaged with the accuser on anything in months (his accusation that I am "editing without including WP:V sources" comes from a conversation to which he was never even a party on an article that, to the best of my knowledge, he doesn't even edit). There are certain articles I won't even touch anymore because I know the accuser will revert them. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, the vast majority of the edits I make that are unsourced are simply rephrasings, trimmings to cut excess detail and copy-editing with no new material. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user has made multiple edits today adding unsourced content ([112], [113], adding unsourced draft rules/unsourced detail that someting "had never been attempted", [114]) and has included personal comments in WP:COMMENT text ([115], [116]). This user continues to make unsourced edits after many years of warnings to stop the disruptive behavior. This is a long-term pattern of behavior that is unlikely to stop without admin intervention. AldezD (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the accuser who requires administrator intervention because said person is the only person who has shown any persistent pattern of objection to my editing. Just minutes ago, he reverted an edit where I removed a small piece of unsourced content the accuser would have not known about had he not been stalking my contribution page. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that whenever called out on his behavior by other users, the accuser simply blanks his talk page without discussion. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by me removed again your own unsourced ("since AccuWeather no longer promotes it") WP:OPINION WP:CBALL ("we don't know if it is ever going to be defunct") information placed in a MOS:COMMENT that you had already edited a second time (" I wouldn't say that it's soon to be defunct, since no one has any idea if it will ever be shut down"). This user continues to edit disruptively and will continue without administrator intervention. AldezD (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that you understand what the meaning of "disruptive" is. That comment was an explanation as to why it was wrong to use that word when no such source supported it and why my choice of word was more appropriate. If you find that disruptive, I'm afraid your standards are impossibly difficult. Are there times where I may resort to making an unsourced edit? Yes, but usually that is only when a change in the facts is made so quietly and unnoticed that it is difficult to cite a hard source as to when or how it happened. In such cases, I do everything in my power to try and prove that what I type is true. You are making it sound as if I'm running around Wikipedia vandalizing things. Certainly not! J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And administrators, can we please have someone resolve this dispute in short order? I really have no interest in bickering on the Internet. It's been years already with this guy and I'd like a resolution, please. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not an admin, but whatever else, I think part of the resolution has to be that you stop being so loose in adding unsourced content. In particular following the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that says

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

Even if you try to argue in some of the cases it was reasonable to think it was unlikely to be challenged, I do not understand how an experienced editor can think it's acceptable to change sourced info so it no longer matches the source as you did here [117][118]. Find a new source or at least remove the existing source or tag it to indicate it doesn't match the source. Note that although the current version of the source does include a new figure, your edit summaries strongly suggests that it did not at the time and indeed it did not even 4 days later [119]. You should never assume a source is going to be updated (and frankly if that source is regularly updated we should be relying on archived versions anyway). And if you are going to create a problem for others to fix by adding unsourced content, you should let them know you are doing so by not misleading them into thinking the content is sourced, when it is not andas in fact the source doesn't match the content. (It's no good for readers either.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 16:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: That's a fair enough criticism. There are times where I have edited first and added the sources later. I can easily work to avoid that in the future. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User forcing edits through

The user 37.228.244.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is forcing their edits through on the Mechwarrior 2 article, more specifically they're trying to insert links to a fansite and a discord site, despite being told that these are not appropriate per WP:ELNO. Eik Corell (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP made the actually-correct point that the other external links there were rather comparable - as those other links have *also* been removed now, we shall see if the disagreement goes away. If not, the IP has been adequately warned for spam links, and will be blocked. ~ mazca ^talk 20:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only communication with this editor before starting this discussion appears to have been a few words in a couple of edit summaries, with nothing on the article talk page or the user talk page, so "despite being told that these are not appropriate per WP:ELNO" seems to be stretching the truth a bit. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I guess I'm in the habit of assuming people look at edit summaries/histories, which may not be the case with new users. Regardless, the user has replied on to messages on their talk page so I'll take it there. Eik Corell (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP - 99.89.95.152

IP is proving disruptive now. They've had warnings from others, and it's now clear they don't intend to assist in working with Wikipedia. GUtt01 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to help by adding some information is all. The only problems was that I wasn't adding any sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.95.152 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever

Jamez42's repeated block deletions

User:Edit5001

Iwinagain66

User:MioAkiyama26

GPRamirez5

Disruptive editing and potential editing while logged out by Q douglasii

JoshuaIsTheFalco

Truth213

Long term block evasion from Baltimore

Duane E. Tressler (talk · contribs) has evaded a block by Drmies for years. Latest IP is 169.156.4.36 (talk · contribs), and I'm having no luck getting a block this afternoon. I'm also asking that the library be contacted, if that's within admins' purview. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP CD63, is that why you are mass-deleting content? tedder (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedder: CD63 knows what they're doing; please do as they request. Thank you. ——SN54129 21:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Serial Number 54129. Mr. Tressler is one of the most determined block evaders I've come across. Absolutely prolific at adding unsourced geography and lore, not to mention a fountain of personal commentary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And years after Drmies explained we don't do it here, adds birth and death dates to every person mentioned in every article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a good sense of the full scope, read Timeline of Baltimore and check its edit history. A monument to unsourced lore and original research. I don't know where to even start to bring that to an acceptable state. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• tedder, yes, those edits probably look very drastic; look at my edits today and you'll see some similar ones. Duane could be a force for good but is not. They edit often from the public libraries and you'd think they'd have a wealth of sources for the local topics they edit, but really nothing that they do is sources. For every interesting and relevant factoid they add, there's a dozen edits with irrelevant and verbose detail, unnecessary dates and wikilinks, and long digressions. One of the IPs we looked at today, they'd been using that since at least 2014. I did in fact contact a librarian for the library system (just to give them a heads-up, in case patrons were complaining they couldn't edit Wikipedia), but of course those librarians can hardly be expected (legally, morally, and practically) to police their patrons' workstations so I don't really know what else we can do. I placed a rangeblock, and before I did so I looked at over a thousand edits: all Duane's. They are certainly prolific. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CD63 and Drmies. That gives the context I was missing. tedder (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See our conversation about this from early December [238]. And this sentence [239]. It merits some kind of recognition. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to read the edits and I actually shouted at my screen "That's WRONG!" at a few of them. (I may or may not have some knowledge of Baltimore FYI). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant source removals and blatant Israeli POV pushing on a variety of articles by Greyshark09

User should be warned/blocked for violation of Wikipedia policy of deliberate source removing and censoring articles about Israel.

Example one: User removes Iraq from the infobox of an Israel Iraq clash without summary [240].

Later on sources are added mentioning the belligerent is a part of the Iraqi Armed forces. [241]

User removes the sources and reverts the edit [242].

Example two: User does the same edit in another article despite the sources mentioning PMF being part of Iraqi Military [243]

Example three: User removes an article about Israeli Iraqi clash from related template without summary [244].

Thanks. HadleyEmerald (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to talk to him about your disagreements with his edits (either on the article talk page or on his own talk page) before coming here? How did he respond when you did that? Michepman (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Michepman's question is spot on. HadleyEmerald, you appear (based on your contributions) to not have made any attempts at discussing the issue with the editor in question. There's nothing administrators can do here. Please discuss the issue with the editor first. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThosLop

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

Another editor recently started a thread here about this problematic editor. That thread was archived without action to here. The crux of the issue is that the editor is adding fire department/district websites to the external links section of various articles. Examples; [245],[246]. More than a hundred of these edits have been reverted per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#External_links, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and WP:LINKFARM. The editor has been warned about these edits starting in August of last year (see User_talk:ThosLop#August_2019). Despite multiple attempts at contact by several different editors on this editor's talk page, despite several warnings regarding the issue, despite the prior WP:AN/I thread, despite a final warning to his talk page here, this editor is continuing as before; [247]. To date, the editor has made 381 edits; all to mainspace. The editor has never once made a talk page edit. The editor is either unwilling to discuss the issue, or is completely oblivious to the hundreds of revert messages they have received and the many talk page notices that have appeared on their talk page. Regardless of why they are acting in this manner, their edits are disruptive and they are refusing to discuss the issue in any respect. I am asking for them to be blocked to prevent the continued disruption. The editor has been notified of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on ThosLop's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: They appear to either have ignored or not understood your message. [248] Yosemiter (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, this editor has been warned multiple times, including a final warning here, had a WP:AN/I thread started about them prior to this one located here which they failed to respond to, and were given effectively another final warning by NinjaRobotPirate here. To date, the editor has never edited a talk page, and has ignored every warning, every thread, every revert against their edits. They continue to add inappropriate external links. It's time to block. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've indefinitely blocked ThosLop pending some kind of effort to communicate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now unblocked. ThosLop looks to understand the issues raised here, and I've pointed the editor our help forums. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm quite hopeful based on the communication on his talk page. Thanks Ninja! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection of multiple articles (more complex that typically handled at WP:RFPP)

An unregistered editor using multiple IP addresses - most recently 174.253.160.95 - is edit-warring with multiple editors to add or retain the same content in multiple articles: American Academy of Dramatic Arts‎, List of Florida Institute of Technology people, List of Ohio State University people, and List of Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University alumni‎. All of the edits focus on adding a stuntman to the articles (e.g., [249], [250], [251]) but all of the other editors who have examined these edits have determined that the sources - when sources are provided - are not reliable. There is an open discussion in the article's Talk page in which he or she is fitfully participating while continuing to edit all of the articles against the developing consensus. He or she has used edit summaries (e.g., [252]) that indicate a familiarity with 3RR so I don't think a warning for that is necessary (and it's difficult to keep up with the changing IP addresses).

Can someone please temporarily semi-protect these articles to prevent the unregistered editor from continuing to edit war? (I'd ask for a block but I the IP addresses keep changing - 174.253.160.95, 108.214.242.121, 216.189.211.99, etc. - and I don't see pattern that is amenable to a range block.) Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for future reference, RfPP is quite suited to handle these sort of requests, and often does. In any case, Semi-protected for a period of one month, all, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 18:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also might want do semi-protect Melvin Wine, as the IP also added that Aukerman is Wine's cousin in the personal life section. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather wait to see if it's still on their immediate range of interests, but watchlisted. El_C 18:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: just re-added Aukerman to Melvin Wine under the account User:Missuslulu, which also was the account that added Aukerman to alumni lists in the first place. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was quick! El_C 19:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, I came here to read about a complex case hoping multiple categories and/or tens of articles being requested for protection. I must say I am very disappointed. DBigXrayᗙ 18:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep hanging around. We're finding more and more sockpuppets and articles! :) ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StutzTCB has now reinserted the content on at least one of the pages. Hug^syrup 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears as if syrup is the one involved in starting and continued instigation of this edit war, and bias toward the stuntman, and bent on removing the stuntman's name from all Wikipedia page alum lists and or other mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is "Hugsyrup", and your stuntman is not notable or noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for assisting with this situation. To characterize Hugsyrup's actions as anything but helpful is a total mischaracterization. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One user, multiple Swiss IPs editing disruptively

• 213.55.220.221 (talk · contribs)
• 213.55.220.45 (talk · contribs)
• 213.55.224.224 (talk · contribs)
• 213.55.220.96 (talk · contribs)
• 213.55.220.111 (talk · contribs)
• 31.10.170.156 (talk · contribs)

And cropping up faster than I can keep track. The edits are poorly written, which would be one thing if the user stayed in place. But they're jumping from one account to another, which suggests that the edits are not well-intentioned anyway. 2601:188:180:B8E0:55AD:391C:FBB:BE24 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps page protection for the articles in question.... 2601:188:180:B8E0:55AD:391C:FBB:BE24 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked 213.55.192.0/18 for 3 days. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ohnoitsjamie. 2601:188:180:B8E0:55AD:391C:FBB:BE24 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to communicate and marking all edits as minor

User talk:97.117.65.7 need his talk page privileges removed

possible violation of editing restrictions

@Beeblebrox: Please be aware of WP:NPA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC).
[reply]

Can you quote the personal attack(s) you are referring to? --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

68.194.241.193

NOTHERE block needed for User:Gaurarjun

User:Jkofidittir

User:Dalhoa repeatedly making unsupported edit and reverting with little willingness to discuss.

• Human (edit talk history links watch logs)
• Dalhoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Skllagyook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I apologize if this message is excessively long. I am unsure how much detail to include and I hope to explain everything adequately. Recently USER:Dalhoa has made an edit to the Human page involving an extrapolation that seemed unsupported by the source they added (and in which they removed statements supported by several refs), which I reverted with detailed explanations. They they reverted me, ignoring my edit notes (I left several edit notes with explanations) and simply (in two reversions) claiming that my edit was "POV" without explanation (I had explained why it was not). I engaged them in a di wescussion (first posting on their Talk page and then moving the discussion to the article's Talk page), and though they made a few replies to which I responded, they have ignored my latest responses and simply reinstated their edit without responding to my responses or attemting to reach consensus (and the responses they did give did not seem to address the issues raised). In reverting their latest edit on the Human page, I believe I may have broken the 3 revert rule but I did so because they seemingly insisted on pushing their edit after refusing to listen and refusing to continue the discussion to reach consensus, and I have since self-reverted. This editor has seemingly shown a refusal to listen in this and other recent exchanges and has recently shown pattern of inaccurately representing sources (along with a persistent tendency toward hostility and incivility in discussions and a failure or refusal to listen). Here is the edit history of the Human article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human&action=history and the incomplete discussion in that Article's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human#Behavioral_modernity

Here is a recent exchange I had with them in which they persistently engaged in a uncivil manner (without making clear what their dispute was) and seemingly refused to listen and inaccurately characterized statements made by me while making accusations (despite my not engaging in said behavior, and my requesting them to be civil repeatedly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#recent_changes Another instance of persistent incivility (my first exchange with them) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Horn_of_Africa#Jebel_Irhoud_in_Morocco_obsession

And here is an instance in which they ignored my request for discussion entirely regarding an edit which seemed to me to be an instance of WP:OR or WP:synthesis (though I did not persist in reverting them and left their edit as it currently is): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homo_sapiens#Recent_edits

In my exchanges with this user, they have shown a tendency to make accusations (involving misinterpretations/mischaracterizations of my statements and other actions as well as personal aspersions of my motives and aggressive and insistent accusations and assumptions of bad faith) which then take time for me to address (and lead to long exchanges that make little to no progress - into which they seem to bring an unwarranted combativeness and hostility). I am not sure how to proceed, as discussion does not seem to have worked. I hope I have not responded inappropriately in my dealings with them or here.

Any help/attention in addressing this issue is appreciated. Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I have self-reverted/reverted my aforementioned most recent reversion on the Human page (which appears to have violated the 3-revert rule) of Dalhoa's most recent edit (while the issue is addressed here/while waiting for the issue to be addressed here). This post was originally made at 03:22, 9 January 2020. But it never received a response, and I was not sure what to do so I have now posted it again (with minor edits) Skllagyook (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your first posting of this here was ignored because it's a run-of-the-mill content dispute, as opposed to an "incident". Have you look at WP:DR for ideas? Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Are you sure? They (Dalhoa) have shown an unwillingness to discuss the issue on the Human page (insisting on reverting while not responding in Talk, or barely doing so, and finally ignoring me). Their behavior on that page seems to me to be (possibly) disruptive (But I'm not sure what to do because I do not want to continue to edit war - I reverted myself - and they have refused to continue the discussion and have simply ignored most of the issues I have raised about their edit). They have also behaved combatively (e.g. in the Talk of the Recent African origin of modern humans page: continuing to do so long after I had conceded their point, never making clear what their dispute was despite being repeatedly asked, misinterpreting what I had said and seemingly not acting in good faith (e.g. in one instance citing an old edit of mine from October to another user as evidence that I held a position they they knew I no longer held - because we had discussed it later). Though have I tried to assume good faith for as long as I could, they seem determined to do the opposite for me, and have refused to be civil on multiple occasions despite my pleading with them to do so (endlessly making hostile unfounded personal assumptions about me and accusations). In some cases, their criticisms (such as on the Recent African origin of modern humans talk page) have been confusing and contradictory (and have begun to seem like excuses to attack me rather than real criticisms). I do not understand their combative attitude and nothing I do seems to help. They have been very difficult to discuss with to say the least . It seems to me like a conduct issue at this point. Am I incorrect? Skllagyook (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see some conduct issues here. At Talk:Horn of Africa Dalhoa created Talk:Horn of Africa#Jebel Irhoud in Morocco obsession (the title itself is not civil) and accused Skllagyook of promoting/favoring a particular region. They accused User:Nezahaulcoyotl of the same thing although he hasn't edited the article although he did edit Jebel Irhoud in Sept/Oct. here they accuse Skllagyook of bias and lack of objectivity. Then Dalhoa (who I just noted has made only 215 edits) wrote "Your changes are not in good faith, your are mixing deliberately the fossils and spreading inaccurate and erroneous information around. The only reason you wanted to keep that section is because the article mentions Morocco and the dating coincides with your Jebel Irhoud dates, you were not adding it to mention East Africa and South Africa coalescence, the quote I added from your academic paper mentions coalescence of South and East-African source populations but you are not interested in that," and more in the same vein until the thread stopped in November. Dalhoa then started a new thread asking "if there are any Editors/Administrators doing editings in the background?" and then "If there are Admins with their own political agenda using this page as their playground we need to know." This seems to be about an accusation that the history of the article had been tampered with. Admin User:Maile66 tried to explain the protection but their explanation wasn't accepted.

This month there have been similar problems at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans. Here Dalhoa accuses Skllagyook of stalking and deliberately spreading misinformation. Then here[276] of spreading misinformation and "clearing(which seems to be a typo for "clearly" attempts to inhibit accurate information,". Further examples of this sort of comment followed but I won't bore people with them. User:Moxy and User:Flyer22 Reborn tried to deal with the content issue and I hope they will continue. @Joe Roe and Dudley Miles: if either of you have time to also help that would be useful. Pinging you because I've seen you recently discuss the issues. I see that Skllagyook did file a DRN case but that was abandoned because he felt ANI was more appropriate. As Skllagyook has asked me for help I think a warning from someone else would be the appropriate outcome here. Doug Wellertalk 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to get a response from User:Dalhoa, I left a longer note on their talk page which explains the issue. They have not edited for two days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (to all/both that have done so) for addressing this. Skllagyook (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that Dalhoa has engaged in very problematic editing. Although Skllagyook has made edits that others have also considered questionable (as is clear from Skllagyook's talk page), Skllagyook appears to be the more reasonable of the two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: I know that this is very minor and perhaps not especially related point, and perhaps an odd thing to mention here, but I feel I should perhaps point out (though I understand that you were referring to much more on my Talk page than this; I would assume you were, as there are, of course, other issues that have been brought up on my page) that in the section on my Talk page entitled "Cushitic People Dispute" it was the other editor (with whom I was having a dispute - Kndmn64, now blocked as a sock puppet) who had removed my dispute resolution notice from their Talk page (rather than me removing theirs from mine - which from the language may not be clear) that the editor Robert McClenon (from Dispute Resolution) was referring to there (on my page). I know this is a tangent and likely a strange thing to bring up here, but it struck me that the language used on my Talk page describing the event is somewhat ambiguous. Anyway, I just thought I would mention that detail. Apologies for the tangent. Skllagyook (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, @EdJohnston:, @Flyer22 Reborn: Dalhoa has not yet responded here, but has posted two responses on their Talk page ([[277]]) mainly repeating many of their previous accusations, and now also announcing their intention to file a report on me (and others) at the No original research noticeboard (for what I don't know), which seems to me to be unjustified. Their most recent responses seem to include deflections from the issues raised without addressing them, and they still have not addressed the issue on the Human page (nor the topic I started at the Homo sapiens page). Skllagyook (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Es204L: A history of incompetency and failure to comply by simple Wikipedia rules

I am writing for file a complaint against user user:Es204L, for persistent vandalism as well as a lack of ability to follow simple Wikipedia rules. User user:Hurricane Noah has previously filed a complaint on this user for a similar reason, and many notes for improvement have been left on the user's talk page, and they are still failing to meet basic Wikipedia standards. Additionally, their lack of ability to use the english language is evident on their talk page, with claimed 'hiatus' notes having lacklustre grammar and spelling. Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz^{Talk to me here :)} 19:02 UTC, January 11 2020

First, you've provided no evidence. Second, the link to the previous complaint is malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hurricane Noah, could you please provide a permanent link to your previous complaint, as Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz's link isn't working? I'd really like to read it. Super Typhoon, please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to create permanent links. It's easy when you know how. 😉 Bishonentalk 19:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see this isn't Es204L'S first brush with ANI, this second link is the one Hurricane Noah mentioned. Maybe this might shed some light on the subject ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 19:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, although I don't see how the link to the SPI is relevant. So in April 2019 the user was brought here and Oshwah blocked them for two weeks. What we need now is evidence of disruption (the OP calls it "vandalism") since that time and particularly recently.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here’s one piece of evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropical_cyclones_in_2019&diff=prev&oldid=935158520 I am on mobile right now, but I contacted the OP and asked him to present evidence. Noah^Talk 20:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do disagree with this being labeled as vandalism as it is good faith. The issue here is Es204L is continually disruptive by not providing sources (forces others to find sources or revert) and removing entire sections while rewriting instead of replacing them with new text. Noah^Talk 20:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of copious amounts of text, as well as general carelessness

• Whole section removed
• Unsourced material, changing standard months of activity to a different range of months
• Adds a custom message, replacing chunks of text with 'Es204L under construction'
• Unsourced material yet again, replacing chunks of text and cursing for no apparent reason
• Uncited and duplicated content
• Claiming that the season ended on December 27, when the calendar year wasn't even over
• Terrible grammar when replacing a big chunk of text
• Unformatted text in a completely different paragraph
• Bad grammar and terrible formatting
• Unnecessarily changing image width
• Terrible grammar yet again
• Terrible grammar and spelling
• Terrible english

The list goes on. You can see a list of the user's edits here:

• User's contributions Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz^{Talk to me here :)} 20:35 UTC, January 11, 2020

I agree with you on the SPI, that's why I pulled it out as not needed. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the link in Super Typhoon's header as it was malformed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• God how I wish editors would NOT do this fancy shadowing and coloring and stuff in their signatures. Surely everyone makes fun of the co-worker who writes emails in five fonts and a ton of colors? Drmies (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: And that's relevant to the topic because? Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz^{Talk to me here :)} 22:38 UTC, January 11, 2020

User:Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz, it's relevant to your report because you asked for admin intervention and I'm an admin. If you are going to come to ANI and ask for drastic measures, since admin intervention is always drastic, the first thing you should do is write up a clean report that editors and admins don't have to repair, and the second thing is probably to try and not piss off the admins that actually come to look at it. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz, whatever is wrong in your signature that made me have to do this, please fix it one way or another. In addition, when a thread is started with an asterisk to indent, please continue that format, and indent properly. I start with one, you follow with two--not with a bunch of colons. OK? Drmies (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at three edits linked above. What is the supposed grammatical error in this one? What was the "terrible formatting"? Rather than list a whole bunch of things including things that may well be minor (and then link to ALL the editor's contributions) it is better to pick a set, or a couple of sets, of edits that indicate the problems. I mean, deleting a whole chunk, sure, that's not good--but maybe they had a good reason and just didn't leave an edit summary. We need more than this. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In that section, it wasn't too much grammatically wrong, just a capital letter that was missed on 'Typhoon Kammuri', and that is aside the other edits he's made. If you look his edit history you can see that he's done many, many careless edits which I am not spending my time listing here as it would take a copious amount of time. Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz^{Talk to me here :)} 23:40 UTC, January 11, 2020
  • If you're asking me to block someone and one of the pieces of evidence is a missing capital, I think you know what the answer is. Actually, there's two. The first is "no", the second is "present more better evidence". Drmies (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz, I don't know which part of FIX YOUR DAMN SIGNATURE was unclear to you. And how ironic, that you want me to block someone for "terrible formatting" when you are here on an administrators noticeboard with formatting so terrible that it fucks up other editors' comments. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies, and just FYI, I think the problem with Super Typhoon Mercedes-Benz's signature – well, the problem that causes malformation of subsequent edits that led to you making this edit and this justifiably emphatic comment – is that the superscript tag for the "talk" part of the signature isn't closed (that is, the </sup> that should be included at the end is missing). Jonesey95 has fixed the malformed signatures that are already on ANI at present. STM-B, fixing your signature is the FIRST thing you should do when you next log on. Making it less... how should I put this... eye-catching would be good too. EdChem (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I only briefly glanced at this article, but I see a lot of problems. It has been my experience that articles on hurricane seasons have been generally well written so this is quite a disappointment. I'll try to be more formal with observations on the article talk page, but I do see examples of extremely poor English, and large chunks of unsourced material. I also note the use of citation needed templates that I didn't think would be considered appropriate, but I'll try looking into whether that's a valid concern.S Philbrick(Talk) 02:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from Hurricane Noah

@Drmies: Due to the numerous issues with some of the evidence presented above, I will be compiling evidence in a different section. The edits made by Es204L are not vandalous, but simply disruptive because others have to correct or revert them constantly. Noah^Talk 23:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research, unsourced, and unexplained removal No sourcing to validate the 185 mph winds for Halong. The NHC reported Dorian at 160 knots while the JTWC has 155 knots for Halong. Unofficial sources stated higher winds for Halong. Removed a summary paragraph without an explanation. He also mentioned Dorian's ACE as being the highest without any reference. Noah^Talk 23:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed without a source (done 2X)
• duplicating existing content and no reference
• same thing here
• and again
• introducing numerous errors and no sources
• no sources
• no sources
• unsourced again
• removed all content This is disruptive and not the proper way to rewrite a section. The section was simply blanked without explanation and replaced by a note. Noah^Talk 23:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• removed without explanation
• unsourced info
• unsourced information

If you need more, let me know. Noah^Talk 23:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
[reply]

• Hurricane Noah, I haven't looked at all these links, but if we started banning or heavily sanctioning editors for adding unsourced material, including original research, or forgetting to cite, we'd probably have to block or heavily sanction a quarter of all Wikipedia editors. If the user is engaging in edit warring and not taking it to the talk pages, then there could be merit to one or more topic bans, but I'd prefer to see a mentorship here. I don't see anything that can't be resolved through more diplomatic means here. Also, has Dispute Resolution been tried, too? I further note some of the above references are to poor English, which could be a language barrier issue. The biggest problem I see here is a failure to assume good faith here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know where you picked up such a notion, but we sanction editors, including indeffing them, frequently for persistently adding unsourced material. The key factors are the level of disruption and their history. You're not an administrator. Please stop acting like one.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dmehus: We have warned this user numerous times in the past and Hurricanehink offered to mentor him, but he simply ignored us. He ignored the first ANI entirely as well. Keep in mind that after being warned multiple times, not citing is disruptive behavior, especially after acknowledging the issues at the second ANI. Creating a lot of work for other editors to fix is disruptive and prevents them from focusing on other tasks. I honestly don't believe this user will ever come to the table and get help from others considering we already tried to offer it. Noah^Talk 00:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, That's true, and it's problematic if the user is not citing, repeatedly, on the same topics; however, if it's just a matter of forgetting to cite once or twice in each article across multiple topic areas, it's less problematic as the user makes their edits, which can be easily cited, and then they move on. Doug Mehus T·C 00:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: It has been on cyclones this entire time, which maybe has 30 or so active editors across the board. To be honest, I could probably find dozens more edits with unsourced content if I looked further back than 3 weeks and in more detail. From what I saw, he readded his own content after it was removed already. Noah^Talk 00:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, Okay, re-adding the same content, not necessarily repeatedly failing to cite, without discussing in the talk pages is what I find most problematic, and possibly worthy of further sanction (though I won't weigh in on what that might be). Doug Mehus T·C 00:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is past precedence for adminstrative action against those who chronically fail to cite sources as it is disruptive, but not something serious enough to warrant immediate action like in the case of edit warring. Noah^Talk 01:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is ample precedent for blocking users who persistently add unverified content. Right now, though, I'm so distracted because of Typhoon's behavior that I don't want to spend a lot of energy looking at these diffs, at least not until I finish my coffee. Maybe Bbb feels like it. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, I agree. The grammar issues are troublesome, but not block-worthy. However, the unsourced content is more troublesome. As an aside, any thoughts on how the citation needed template is used (marking the entire passage)? It's annoying, is it permitted?S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, I like that you brought issues with the "citation needed" template. Ideally, it should be placed after the offending sentence, not the paragraph in which the offending sentence occurred unless, of course, the entire paragraph is lacking necessary citations. I would also like to see editors use the rationale/reason parameter in the template, so they can identify what, specifically needs fixing as often I find the template is added with Twinkle when the citation is there but doesn't specifically address everything in the paragraph. Doug Mehus T·C 16:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I also agree with the persistent removal of unsourced content, especially when no attempt has been made to discuss the disputed removal of content on the applicable talkpages. Doug Mehus T·C 16:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indefinitely blocked Es204L‎--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Please give the user specific warnings, on their talk page, about the behaviors that you find unacceptable. That's a good place to discuss and offer the user some help. If they continue, then maybe you have a case for ANI. I'm not seeing that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They claimed they understood they needed to cite their content in January 2019, I told them how to add references in April 2019 with no response from them, they got blocked for two weeks ten days later for persistent addition of unsourced content, and after a final warning agreed not to add any more unsourced information in May 2019. What I'm seeing - especially from this exchange - is that they aren't particularly willing to learn. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Dicklyon's suggestion. Even if the user has received prior warnings, if one or more editors (there seems to be willingness on the part of multiple editors) to coordinate their warnings, the wording of the warnings, and the severity of the warnings, it will make for a much easier, more streamlined future ANI case for sanction(s) against the user the nominator need only to direct editors/administrators to the user's talkpage instead of researching myriad diffs from a host of article pages. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oldperson – personal attacks despite awareness of WP:NPA

Report a user

Unresponsive static IP adding incorrect data

Persistent addition of unreferenced content by unresponsive User:Gca.345

50.239.116.194

Does anyone have the time to fix a bunch of era style changes, so far as I can see AD to CE

Persistent addition of promotional and copyright violation content (sorry, but AIV is locked right now)

Relentless personal attacks

NikkieTutorials

• [305] EEng 10:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu

Mass Effect character removal

Angel Angel 2

Persistent vandalism from a range of IPs

For the past week or so there has been a persistent amount of vandalism by IP editors from the range of addresses 80.233.32.x-80.233.47.x, which are registered to Hutchison 3G Ireland. Many of them follow the same pattern and target the same pages, sometimes with almost identical wording, e.g. look at 80.233.42.244, 80.233.36.277 and 80.233.32.86. Several blocks have been applied, but new addresses keep popping up. Some of the other edits may be from different people, especially as they are more subtle. Some have lasted for several days and are still current.

Today I've noticed a campaign of adding biographical articles to pointless categories like "Iranian expatriate basketball people in Sweden" that has been going on for at least a few weeks, I can't say for how long. I intend to track down as many as I can but there are literally dozens still current. One list of these edits is Special:Contributions/80.233.37.88. Some of those not flagged as current on this list still need clearing up, as the articles have had subsequent unrelated edits but the bogus categories remain. Is there a technical way to find categories with only one or a small number of members?

As far as I can tell a clear majority of recent edits from this range of addresses have been vandalism. I'm leaving this post as an alert but don't really know what to ask for as the best intervention. A block on the IP range would affect the (minority) of genuine edits from there. Indeed triggering such a block might be just what the pranksters are after. As these are mobile edits I'm guessing the likelihood of the ISP being able to do much to trace the people is minimal. FrankP (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see a wide range of edits from that range, some of them outright racist vandalism, some of it good faith but rather noob-ish contributions, some of it quite good. Given that pattern, other than the racists crap (which does seem like one person) it is hard to say this is ALL coming from one person. I'm not saying no, but really I am leary myself to institute a range block on such a range, given the mix of good and bad editing from it. I'd like to see some more input from others. --Jayron32 18:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion a one month block of Special:Contributions/80.233.32.0/20 could be justified. I'd encourage User:FrankP to list all the IPs where he thinks the category vandal has been active. That might help admins to focus a rangeblock more precisely. If you click on the above /20 range you will notice that some edits have been revdelled, which must imply that other admins consider them especially bad. In my opinion, a clear majority of bad edits from a range would be enough reason to do a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just applied a three month range block on 80.233.32.0/20; this goes back a long time, and the vandal has been very persistent. -- The Anome (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responses, and the block. With regards to the vandals, I'm convinced it's not all one person. I don't think Mr. Choad ("racist crap") could possibly manage any degree of subtlety, therefore some of the edits must be by others. The edit summaries which have been deleted contained puerile racist abuse. They may be schoolkids - I think there is a correlation with the beginning and end of the school day (e.g. 0845-ish UTC and after 1600). I have narrowed down the IP range as far as I can, the examples above plus the following do span the 20-bit CIDR range I've given, and there are more besides:

• Special:Contributions/80.233.46.104,
• Special:Contributions/80.233.33.85
• Special:Contributions/80.233.45.199
• Special:Contributions/80.233.33.109

I'm still looking into the Category issue. It really is starting to look very widespread, but it is possible it's a good-faith editor with a passion for over-precise categories like "Actors from Chorley, Lancashire". It affects biographies of sports-people, musicians and actors, as far as I can see. I don't think I can manage a list of the IPs that have originated this particular type of edit - I'm concentrating on tracking them down by topic and person, and that is work enough. FrankP (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive threats

Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs)

The editor has made four false accusations of stalking and threats to bring me to ANI in an apparent attempt to stop my contributions. They also keep posting to my TP despite my demands that they stop posting there. As they haven’t brought this to ANI, I am bringing it here in an effort to stop the threats.

Diffs:

• 20:06 5 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Objective3000&diff=934297853&oldid=934286280
• 00:38 7 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Tessa_Majors&diff=934521970&oldid=934519572
• 02:26 7 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikieditor19920&diff=934537158&oldid=934532207 (In edit summary)
• 02:57 7 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Objective3000&diff=934541580&oldid=934300033

They have also accused another editor of stalking and threatened them with ANI in the same period.

• 00:16 7 January 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SharabSalam&diff=934519200&oldid=934501701

The editor also threatened admin action against me last July and then complained on El C’s UTP. This is the threat and the result:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Objective3000#Tag_removal_at_Antifa_(United_States)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C/generic_sub-page13#Continued_removal_of_cleanup_tags_at_Antifa_(United_States)

I am not asking for any sanction. I would just ask that the editor be informed that attempts to intimidate editors with opposing views is not proper. O3000 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This fits the definition of WP:HARASSMENT

Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

Wikieditor19920 should be warned to desist or face a block for so clearly violating this policy. - MrX 🖋 14:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Bishonen warned Wikieditor19920 about similar behavior just a few days ago. Perhaps the warning didn't stick. - MrX 🖋 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Clearly not a threat per WP:HARASS#Threats: Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats. If you feel threatened by it, perhaps tell them that? Oh wait, you told him to never post on your talkpage after his first post there ever. --Pudeo (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very helpful comment. Was it intended to be? An editor is making repeated, unfulfilled threats to a single user in the context of basic content disputes. Whether that meets the wikilegal threshold for harassment, or whether it's just annoying and disruptive, I think it's behavior that is not WP:CIVIL and it's certainly not something I would want to be subjected to. - MrX 🖋 16:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, you told him to never post on your talkpage after his first post there ever. No, that was not their first post there. You will find it in my list of diffs. But you are correct that I demanded they stop posting on my UTP -- after which they posted twice more with threats and accusations. O3000 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX You have absolutely no basis to jump to any conclusion here. This is a frivolous and abusive report by Objective3000. I was ready to let this drop, but now I'll provide some context. O3000 and I were both involved at Talk:Ilhan Omar for about a week. We both strongly disagreed with each other about a content proposal on that page. Fine. Then, all of a sudden, O3000 suddenly appears at a discussion I had been actively involved in at [Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors]], a rather obscure page, to disagree and argue with me. This is an obvious case where it seems likely my contributions were followed, and I think any editor's antennae would be raised if someone they disagreed with at "Page A" suddenly appeared to aggressively disagree with them at obscure "Page B" where they had no prior involvement. I asked him on his talk page how he ended up there and whether he was stalking my edits. He responded with a belligerent non-answer and told me "never to post on his talk page again". I gave him notice that if the behavior continued, meaning if he were to suddenly appear at more pages I was at to contest my edits, I would file an ANI report for stalking. 03000 then proceeded to cause trouble at Murder of Tessa Majors by making subtle changes to implement a proposal still under discussion, which he was arguing for and which has little support, without mentioning it in his edit summary. (The proposal was an article move. Most editors opposed. He proceeded to change the bolded intro to reflect the name of the proposed move, which makes little sense.) Me and another editor raised a concern about this on the talk page and he was reverted. At this point I gave him another warning on the article talk page. He then proceeded to post on my talk page with a phony "polite" message about "personal attacks and threats" (I've made no personal attacks against him) after demanding that I "never again" post on his. I posted a response to his talk page, giving him my last warning about the disruptive editing and. I got the "never talk to me again" note from O3000.

There is strong evidence he followed me to another page after disagreeing with me on another, made disruptive edits at that page, and clearly won't let it drop. As I indicated in each of my warnings to 03000, I would only file a report if he either a) appeared to stalk me to another page or b) continued to disruptively edit the article mainpage at Murder of Tessa Majors. And let me say that I would have filed a report had he done either of those things. If he didn't, then, as I told him, there would be no problem. Now, for those warnings, he is reporting me. My guess is that 03000 is not asking for a sanction because he knows he's in the wrong. If an editor gives another good reason to believe they are stalking them and goes out of their way to make trouble, it's perfectly appropriate to post a warning about stalking. I really have absolutely no interest in a protracted dispute w/ 03000, and I really regard this report as abusive/bullying. It is within any editors right to respond to perceived stalking with a warning, especially if that apparent stalking is accompanied by disruptive editing. (I realize I've assumed that 03000 is a "he." Apologies if this is incorrect, treat it as a gender neutral "he" if not.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the editor has accused three editors of stalking that I know of, the two above and nableezy: [307] and [308]. As to why I would edit such an “obscure article”, perhaps I heard about it because I have lived in the same borough in the same city as the victim for decades and it's in all the local papers. Seriously, the editor should stop assuming those with whom he disagrees are stalking them. As for the rest of the above, it's about content and not behavior -- although it contains a lot of false claims. As for why I brought this to ANI; that should be obvious. It was the only way to stop him from continually threatening to bring it to ANI. Look, all I asked is that the editor be informed that this behavior is not acceptable. O3000 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's totally inappropriate for you to bring up unrelated interactions with editors from months ago, with no context, and put these forward as if they stand as evidence of me doing something wrong. Second, this story has been in the paper for weeks, but why is it that you suddenly show an interest at precisely the same time that you and I began interacting? Can you really claim that you did not view my contributions and find the page that way, or that you had no idea your behavior would give the impression of WP:STALK?

Second, if you're going to accuse me of "false claims," then be specific, because nothing I've asserted is false. You knew very well that the change you made to the article I noted above was the subject of an ongoing RfC. It was another editor who pointed that out on the talk page. It's perfectly within my right to give you notice of this behavior. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my statement and have no interest in defending myself from your constant accusations. Please take Bishonen's warning to heart. You are exhibiting WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior and have been for months. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a summary of our interactions from my perspective, in response to the report that you filed. If you're going to say I've made a "false accusation" about you, then you should point out what it is. I would happily correct any mistake, but I've supported my summary with diffs and I don't believe I've made one. If you hadn't appeared to follow me to another page, which I politely asked you about first, and behaved disruptively there, as another editor noted, we wouldn't have had an issue in the first place. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop? I did not stalk you. SharabSalam did not stalk you. Nableezy did not stalk you. And you made a threat on my TP previous to this incident (in the diffs). And please realize that not agreeing with you is not being disruptive. Read Bishonen's warning. O3000 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make declarations about what did or didn't transpire in unrelated interactions that had nothing to do with you. When an editor suddenly appears at other pages you've been editing to disagree following a disagreement at another page, that's a clear red flag anyone would address. You dismissed my justified suspicion about WP:STALK with no acknowledgement of how your behavior might've lead to that conclusion, and mere disagreement is clearly not what I'm talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to observe that the hyper-aggressiveness and hyper-personalization on display here are sadly characteristic of WE19920. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bishonen's expression of concern in the DS notice seems clear. I'm for imposing some sort of sanction on that, but will not act unilaterally. The question is whether this user is a net positive in post 1932 US politics, or whether they're too het up about it to edit collaboratively. I think they're to overheated, but then I don't know everything.-- Deepfriedokra 02:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Warning that conduct could lead to a notice board discussion is not a threat. However, there seems to be an inability to discuss matter collaboratively, there seems a lack of WP:AGF, and there seems a problem with accusations.-- Deepfriedokra 02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  User makes accusations about others, but does not wish there own conduct discussed? Really?-- Deepfriedokra 02:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bishonen thinks saying "what a dishonest post" is a personal attack? Meh. --Pudeo (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't get notified about this discussion. I didn't receive O3000 ping. I simply went to O3000 talk page and found his reply. It is very important to clerify this because I will be accused of following Wikieditor's contributions!. I have been editing in these controversial murder, shooting cases. And just to make people aware, this case is very controversial because the teenager who is accused is African American and the girl who was killed is European American. And I don't think I should say that America is full of racism. Wikieditor19992 acts like if there is no person was aware of this article subject before him. So I found about the article, didn't even notice that Wikieditor19998 was there. I just noticed the tag at the article which says that there is a discussion to move the article. I clicked discuss and went to the end of the talk page. I said move per WP:BLPCRIME. After a while I got a message from Wikieditor19992 saying that I am following him because of Ilhan Omar dispute. And that is absolutely not true. Repeatedly assuming bad faith is considered personal attack and harassment per WP:AGF. I have seen this editor making the same accusation about Nableezy before.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Look, this is silly. I never threatened 03000 nor did anything to "stop his contributions." I did assume good faith with 03000 by politely asking whether he'd followed my edits. Besides the issues I raised above, which I believe are justified, I do not have a problem editing alongside 03000. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I did assume good faith with 03000 by politely asking whether he'd followed my edits." I see. If it's this edit that you describe as a good-faith-assuming polite ask, it seems you have little sense for how your sarcasm comes across. Either that, or you're hoping people here have no sense for it. Yes, I did warn Wikieditor19920 in December about insulting people. Now I have warned them more strongly (mentioning the possibility of blocks) about pervasive hostility and snarliness, and told them they'll be blocked unless they dial it down. Also, that they'll be blocked if they post on Objective3000's page again. Feel free to let me know if anybody should see them disregarding this warning. Bishonentalk 13:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: One of the complainants here has told another editor in an American politics related MfD: [309]How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!! Back when that happened, it was mentioned at AE etc. and nothing was thought of it. Now you are warning Wikieditor19992 for far, far less. It seems that there are two sets of standards at play. Different rules are applied for different editors depending on whether they follow the house POV. --Pudeo (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Busybodygate is soooo over. What you saw in May 2018, was the culmination of three editors following my edits on several articles, trying to annoy me by changing my talk page posts, and then finally, following me to my unlinked user subpage page to harass me by demanding that it be deleted. For your information, one of those editors is banned; one has been sanctioned in Arbcom cases; and one has been topic banned from American Politics. That speaks loudly to what precipitated my rare outburst far more than some silly conspiracy theory about a house POV. - MrX 🖋 14:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo, I don’t think going back to a comment in a May 2018 MfD about a user subpage that was a draft of a complex, successful ARCA filing is useful. It would take a five page essay to explain. And it certainly isn’t an indicator of some WikiWide bias. O3000 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although they already received a warning for the what a dishonest post mentioned above, I'd point out that this user has been extremely upfront about their low opinion of the editors they're in disputes with on Talk:Ilhan_Omar. Individually these wouldn't be a big deal, but they have been WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion with comments like these for weeks now despite being warned:

• [310] This is, yet again, another false insinuation that the criticism of her remarks was a minority or limited view. ... That would be an obvious BLP violation which neither I nor anyone here would agree to, so I understand why it makes a convenient strawman
• [311] Our concern is a balanced representation of the sources, not shielding the subject from controversy.
• [312] Don't be ridiculous. I said she reaffirmed her criticism regarding AIPAC.
• [313] There is simply too much reliable source material spread out over too many months for a reasonable editor to argue that the ant-semitic trope allegations is not a prominent and controversial part of her public profile.
• [314] There is a disturbing and consistent trend among exclude votes that I hope any admin reviewing this discussion will take note of. ... It is a terrible shame that this discussion has become so tainted with expressions of opinion about her remarks, about the subject herself, and with overwrought comparisons to other politicians that have little relevance here.
• [315] Further, I don't appreciate some of the tactics being used by editors opposing the content.
• [316] However, the kind of speculating and theorizing that you and SharabSalam are engaging in is exactly the type of behavior that is unproductive and forbidden from article talk pages. Note that both editors they're addressing are experienced and obviously know the policy.
• [317] SharabSalam, this is not a forum for you to discuss your personal views. You are expressing opinions that suggest an inability to edit neutrally
• [318] This is all pure opinion, by an editor, which should not and cannot taint this article.

There's also a lot more from before they were warned beyond the one line they were warned for (eg. [319], You already stepped over the line by sneakily trying to get the content out a few months back -- now you're rewording it in a way that is not true to what's reported), but I figured I should stop there. Editors shouldn't have to deal with this sort of thing. If Wikieditor19920 really thinks there are conduct issues on that page, they know where WP:AE and this page are and how to raise such concerns properly. --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am coming late to the discussion, and I am not reading all of the above. Just want to add my two cents. User:Wikieditor19920 makes valid points. And proceeds in a civil manner. Other editors are the problem, here. I don't mention names (though they are probably obvious} ... cuz I don't have the time / energy / interest to get sucked into his drama and his "victim" attitude. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a retaliatory post. [320] O3000 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right ... like I need to "retaliate". Gimme a break. From my perspective, you are the problem ... not User:Wikieditor19920. As I said, he makes valid points ... and proceeds in a civil manner. In my opinion, you do not. This is my final word on the matter, here ... as I said ... I don't have the time / energy / interest to get sucked into anyone's drama and anyone's "victim" mentality. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Spadaro, this post is not about the merits of the arguments at Talk:Ilhan Omar, and it's rather absurd for you to show up here and lecture others about civility. Please assume good faith and abstain from calling other editors "problems". --WMSR (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WMSR: This page and this thread are about disruptive editing on Wikipedia articles. I am fully entitled to offer my two cents on the matter, which I did. Why am I not allowed to do so, boss? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, what is the term Awilley coined...uhm, I believe it's grow thicker skin. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose it would save a lot of space to change the fourth pillar of Wikipedia to "grow thicker skin". O3000 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If we want to save space, let's do away with the frivolous reports. What transpired here is that I never "threatened" 03000, I posted two justified warnings on their talk page for 1) apparent stalking from Talk:Ilhan Omar to Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors and 2) disruptive editing (pointed out here by another editor at the latter page). In response, 03000 demanded I "never post on his talk page again" (yet proceed to post on mine by characterizing my warning as a "personal attack.", and then file an ANI report demanding some sort of warning against me. An administrator in this thread has severely reprimanded me for the "tone" of my first warning, which was mild at worst, while completely disregarding this pattern of behavior by 03000. This probably exemplifies how ANI should not be used. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think they sell a cream for that. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WMSR—you say "Joseph A. Spadaro, this post is not about the merits of the arguments at Talk:Ilhan Omar". I don't understand that. Joseph A. Spadaro did not even mention the Ilhan Omar article. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here to stop disruptive threats. My stated goal above: I am not asking for any sanction. I would just ask that the editor be informed that attempts to intimidate editors with opposing views is not proper. Bishonen (no ping) was kind enough to warn the editor. [321] My request here has been satisfied – or at least had been satisfied. Now, the warned editor has claimed above that this is a “frivolous report” and denies any threats. At this point, I think the editor is at risk of compounding their violation. I suggest this be closed before further actions are taken so that the editor can reexamine their edits. O3000 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin and uninvolved commenter in this thread already noted, Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats. An editor is allowed to raise a legitimate issue(s) with another editor's conduct without fear of reprisal. I never made any attempt to prevent 03000's contributions to a page, and my warnings had nothing to do with differing views about article content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish