Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

Hi.

May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.

• a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
• b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
• c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"

2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)

3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.

4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.

5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag

6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[1]]

Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).

Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1) "rare books" is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) "blogs such as Rappler" is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subject attract[s] WP:RGW does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion Seav linked is the latest chronologically and it's the one that matters. Seriously, calling Rappler and Vera Files just "blogs"? They're serious news organizations founded by veteran award-winning journalists.[2][3] -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN. "second RSN and third RSN" as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [4][5]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

@Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into this mess, but has User:Jtbobwaysf explained why they removed sourced content using the edit summary "failed verification" [17] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [18] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [19]. This is a serious problem IMO the kind of thing which may warrant an indefinite block if it continues. It's little better than claiming a source says something when it doesn't. In both cases you are misrepresenting what's in the source, and since a lot of the time we WP:AGF about what editors say are in sources, it can cause major problems. Especially in a case like this where according to Jtbobwaysf, the sources are rare, meaning many people won't have access to them. As I've remarked elsewhere, if Jtbobwaysf was concerned that the sources were unreliable or unsuitable for a BLP, represented a minority viewpoint or there was some other problem, they could have raised this issue without misleading people into thinking the source didn't support the cited claim. I mean heck, if Jtbobwaysf had reasons to doubt the source supported the claim, or felt the lack of page numbers made it very difficult to verify, I might support removal until this was clarified. But again this required a edit summary which accurately reflected why the changes were being made, and probably a talk page comment explaining the situation. Of course we all make mistakes, but it's concerning that AFAICT, Jtbobwaysf has persistently ignored any requests for clarification [20], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf is claiming that the citation source books that he removed are rare and out of print as an excuse to delete them as sources when this is false as they have had recent printings: Some Are Smarter Than Others by Ricardo Manapat reprinted in 2020, available in print and as an e-book and Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption by Barney Warf (2018), also available in print and as an e-book. Even if the books were rare and out of print, his deletions are violative of WP:Verifiability#Accessibility: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." What is completely wrong here is that he claims they failed verification when he did not verify them, and was very dishonest with his reason. When asked point blank if he had read the sources before claiming that they failed verification, he evaded the question multiple times and was ultimately caught that indeed he did not when he asked Chieharumachi to e-mail him scans in this talk page thread. This is now far from Good Faith editing, and is worse than vandalizing the article as he has been deleting content under the pretense of Wikipedia rule violations. Neither is he excused from possible inexperience in Wikipedia as he has been throwing around WP rules in their acronym form that are supposedly violated left and right when they have not. Also, he did it multiple times: [21][22][23]. Furthermore he deleted more valid citations afterwards (Rappler) that WP consensus has determined to be RS, claiming that consensus said it was not RS when the discussion he himself linked determined that it was RS. This is an ongoing pattern that he has been repeating and he has been unrepentant. Despite all of these issues raised, he has now recently continued deleting content without valid reason in his latest edits (see above). It would be good if administrators can look into his behavior and take appropriate action. -Object404 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Why were you pinged by Object404 to this discussion? Which source did I delete that had a page number? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I assume because I commented at BLPN. In any case, I don't think the ping worked since I never saw it and it doesn't show up in my notifications history (I rarely remove them). I'm here because I saw the comment at BLPN about there being a discussion here, I was waiting for my concerns to be addressed somewhere but they haven't been so decided to finally join this discussion. I see you are still refusing to address the point of concern. I already linked to the diff above [24] where you deleted content as failed verification. It seems clear from your persistent refusal to say anything about it that you hadn't actually checked out any of the sources. I admit I misread this request [25], the page scans were about PCGG@30 (which didn't have page numbers) rather than Warf (which had page numbers). However I can only assume from your latest comment you hadn't checked out Warf either as you wouldn't need to ask which source if you had checked it out and found it wasn't there. And frankly the page number thing is only a minor point. While in some ways it's worse that you didn't even check the source which had a page number, the bigger issue is that if you did have some other reason why you deleted the content such as difficulty finding where it was in the sources which lacked a page number, this is what you should have said in your edit summary. And perhaps followed up with a talk page post. Deleting something as failed verification when you haven't checked out the sources is not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I apologize, I do now see the page number at the very end of this citation you have listed (#19) above, haven't seen that any of the times I have looked in the past. Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted. As you have pointed out I made repeated requests for the other Philippines Politics editors (Ill call that PP for ease of use) to supply the sources scans, page numbers, etc and they don't. This means nobody has read it, and the justification to keep it is that it is already there. Is there another logical justification if nobody can verify it? I believe WP:ONUS is on the editor that wants to include content, not the editor that wants to delete it for failing verification. I infrequently edit this article, every six months or so, and mostly my edits relate to removing chaff, dribble, and overt POV content. Normally these edits result in wails of dissatisfaction from the daily POV editors. If you have a look at the whole of my edits and what is going on in general on the article, you will see my edits are neutral and helpful to obtain WP:NPOV. I thought that other uninvolved editors (besides the PP WP:CIRCUS) might take this to note, but until now most of the focus on this talk page is unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part. To be clear, I do not have any connection to the article's subject, I am certainly not a paid editor, and there will be no basis to assert otherwise. But the allegations are fine, and hopefully more views of this discussion in the ANI space will make it the article and WP better, but I admit this this ANI has only seemed to involve two uninvolved editors (you and JzG). Guy's comment was just asking me if I knew the articles subject, which I took to be a justification for vilification. Yes, Imelda is distasteful, but 5 pillars doesnt take that into account. I think we all agree that a BLP must be neutral and the PP editors use of unverifiable rare books, overuse of biographies to pursue WP:TOOLONG, blog sources (rappler and the like), and other nonsense to promote the subject as important (apply a huge net worth to the article's subject) and then vilify her is incorrect from a 5 pillars perspective. You will note one of the editors said I was a "foreigner" and my opinion on the issue was not valid. This is the definition of POV edits and pure CIRCUS. I was asking how you came to this article, since there was also an effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS to get other PP editors to join the discussion. We all agree the article's subject is notable just from her infamous shoe collection, so we do not need to add UNDUE content. I would suggest that PP be added DS, just like AP2. It would then be easier to challenge and remove all the crazy content is at this article, and I guess is also on other PP articles (although I admit I haven't yet ventured to look). You might note that it was also a similar discussion relating to my edits that resulted in DS WP:GS/Crypto, dissention between editors is not always what it appears at first glance. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss, which is why I have brought this up on the talk page, and will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN. Thanks.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor has numerous times deleted online sources which assert that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion," and the only reason we're talking about these "rare" references is that they were the last ones he deleted. The editor has also repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the sentence as asserted on the lead makes no reference to current or recent net worth, but to the amount at its greatest estimated extent, in 1986. It is asserted by Warf, as indicated. It is the main premise of the entire Manapat book. The accusations of being blogs against Rappler and Verafiles are slanderous to those organizations, and the editor's refusal to acknowledge consensus asserting this is... I do not have polite words to describe it. Further, said fact is asserted by other articles which have in the past been removed from the lead. Fischer, 2020; and Davies 2016 come to mind. There is an entire section down in the article full of sources asserted the fact that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion." - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf has again and again repeated assertions and allegations that have been rebutted many times yet he has never responded or acknowledged them. And he keeps on putting words in various editors mouths. Here are some points of his that I would like to respond to:

• "blog sources (rappler and the like)": yet again: Rappler is an established news website not a blog (yes, it has a blog section, but editors are careful not to cite those), and Rappler has already been established as a reliable source in WP:RS/N. If Jtbobwaysf really believes that Rappler isn't a valid and reliable source for citations in Wikipedia articles, then he is free to start (another) thread on WP:RS/N with new points or evidence that have not been brought up in past RS/N discussions. Merely repeating that "Rappler is a blog" without any sort of evidence is bad form.
• "unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part": links, diffs, and detailed explanations posted here, on BLP/N, and the article talk page are "unsubstantiated"? Jtbobwaysf probably need to review what "unsubstantiated" means. Tip: Jtbobwaysf might be thinking of "unproven" which is a word with a totally different meaning.
• "one of the editors said I was a 'foreigner' and my opinion on the issue was not valid": This is a mischaracterization of Sky Harbor's mention of the word "foreigner". See the actual message ([26]) which never stated or implied that Jtbobwaysf's opinion is invalid, but rather that Sky Harbor thinks that Jtbobwaysf is being patronizing.
• "effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS": now this is an unsubstantiated allegation. Just because I agree with other editors that Jtbobwaysf's behavior is disruptive doesn't mean that canvassing has occurred. Personally, I've been monitoring several of the Marcos-related articles since 2016 because of contemporary events in the Philippines. For instance, Marcos's son ran for vice-president in mid-2016 and Ferdinand Marcos was given a controversial hero's burial in late 2016 and there has been a lot of one-sided Wikipedia editing that happened in the wake of those events that ultimately resulted in the one-sided editor getting topic banned.
• "do not need to add UNDUE content": As I have said elsewhere, Ferdinand and Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of literature going back several decades and these are really the major talking points that can be readily found about the Marcos couple. I fail to see how mentioning some information that Jtbobwaysf keeps on deleting is a violation of UNDUE because these pieces of information are definitely not minority viewpoints.

—seav (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted." -> By "tools I have at my displosal", Jtbobwaysf means lazy Googling. Warf is a searchable Google book, and he did not bother checking in it before deleting it as a citation. And by extending this line of logic, he deleted swathes of citations of content just because they were offline sources, claiming "failed verification" when he in fact, did not check the sources, and this is completely unacceptable behavior. Jtbobwaysf is also gaslighting here claiming insertions of WP:UNDUE when the content in question are widely-held views well-documented by RS, not minority ones. -Object404 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This article subject is not Ferdinand Marcos. Please send me the scans of the offline sources that you are implying you have access to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos are inextricably linked and share the Guinness World Record for the Greatest Robbery of a Government. You cannot separate the 2 in terms of theft and wealth. As for sources, you have once again proved that you did not read the sources before claiming they failed verification, and is patently dishonest and unacceptable Wikipedian behavior on your part. x -Object404 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should also be pointed out that the handful of sources around which this discussion currently revolves are not the only references that the editor has deleted. Numerous other sources cite the "Billions," whether referring to them as "stolen", "plundered", illegally acquired (that's based on a ruling by the Swiss Federal Court), were "ill-gotten" (that's at least one Philippine government agency). Several of these specifically cite the USD 5 to 10 Billion amount. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I decided to do some digging up of various references the editor has so far removed from the Imelda Marcos page (although other editors have since returned some of them). I'm not done yet, but from about March to July 2020 removed references these references either on the ill-gotten wealth or on related court cases:

• From The Guardian: Davies, Nick (7 May 2016). "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

• From The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Primary source supported by other references):Supreme Court of the Philippines. "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved 15 November 2018.

• From the Philippine Star: Marcelo, Elizabeth (11 September 2017). "Cases vs Marcoses, cronies remain pending at Sandigan since late '80s". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 9 November 2018.

• From the New York Times archives: Mydans, Seth (November 4, 1991). "Imelda Marcos Returns to Philippines". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2009. Retrieved August 16, 2018.

• From the Sydney Morning Herald: Dent, Sydney (November 23, 2012). "A dynasty on steroids". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 1, 2018.

• From Gerard Lico’s 2003 Ateneo University Press published book: Gerard., Lico (2003). Edifice complex: power, myth, and Marcos state architecture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 978-9715504355. OCLC 53371189.

I haven't had time to complete a review, though. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

And also, quite aside from the sources, there's the matter of bullying behaviour, refusal to recognise consensus, and deletion of citations for no actual reason (just his opinion that they are "dribble")... all of which were raised in the first post of this thread, and further asserted by other editors. I believe it's clear that the editor wants the article either to not to contain or not highlight the negative history of the subject, which would be reasonable except that the subject is palpably notable because of that negative history. One's fear is that the editor will continue deleting details of this ill-gotten wealth, as he has had a long history of doing. I argue that this is would be as much whitewashing as not mentioning the holocaust in the lead of the Adolf Hitler article. Short of that, his refusal to recognize consensus and denigrating of news sources (and courts!) that disagree with his views have held the talk page hostage, making consensus in the article difficult to achieve, and editing intentionally vexatious for anyone who disagrees with him. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Unpleasant RFC at Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch

This is a request for administrative attention at

• Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC:_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede

I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008 (when it was clear that mediation would not resolve the dispute). In my opinion, both principals are personalizing the dispute, and one of them is bludgeoning the process with walls of text. I had stopped following the RFC until I was pinged by one of the principals, and then another editor has asked for help just because the discussion is too long. I haven't observed any actual incivility, just far too much text. I think that maybe an admin who speaks softly and doesn't use the big stick but keeps it handy might help. It will also need a closer in the second week of October, but that is then and this is now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, there was no intention to bludgeon the process with walls of text. It will be noted that the "walls of text" were created on both sides and all my arguments were relevant to the discussion. This issue shows the difficulty of combatting a smear campaign where exhaustive research/analysis is needed to sift through bad press. This also needs an admin who is fair, analytical, logical and deeply concerned about Wikipedia being made a tool of a smear campaign. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that this is a minor difference about how a TV series should be described. I don't know who. if anyone, is right here, but can you both please get some sort of sense of perspective? It's not as if the article was about some geopolitical or religious dispute where strong feelings could be expected. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the series was received badly in Korea and even reliable western media reported it (see 1, 2, 3), and having to "sift through bad press" also proved that it was criticized more than it was praised. "Combatting a smear campaign" is advocacy and is not the job of Wikipedia, Wikipedia's job is reporting, not state opinions. Other users already all voted for the same thing and repeatedly explained to Lizzydarcy2008 that, "if you think that sources, which have been categorized as reliable on WP, are biased and thus can't be used as a source, you need more than just your opinion that there is a conspiracy by detractors to defame the drama, you need other reliable sources that will show that. You cannot just dismiss reliable sources as "detractors" and thus say they can't be used as sources. As I have said before, I understand that you feel that this drama is being treated unjustly, but WP is built on reliable sourcing; you cannot simply make claims as to how you think the drama SHOULD be viewed, you have to summarize how the drama IS viewed by reliable, secondary sources."

The issue is that Lizzydarcy2008 refuses to "summarize how the drama IS viewed" and instead want to insert her opinion and make the page unneutral and gives undue weight to minority-held view (see previous edits where she removed reliably-sources text for no reason 1, 2, inserted her opinion without any sources 1, and edit warred over a section title she deemed is negative and should not be used as it is "nitpicking" and "a tool for a smear campaign"). Other users and I already told Lizzydarcy2008 that she should not be biased and discredit the majority-held view just because she is a fan and feel like the series should be viewed positively. Nangears explained things better than me on the series' talk page, so reading Nangears replies would explain it much more. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, the reason I am requesting a change in the lede section is to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a tool for a smear campaign. CherryPie94 keeps insisting the reason I am doing this is because I am a fan, immediately tarnishing my credibility and clouding other editors' perception. She refuses to look at facts which are as follows: The series was aired in three ways: (1) through the domestic TV network SBS (2) Netflix (3) Wavve, a streaming service in South Korea. On SBS, the series started with high ratings but competition from Netflix and Wavve, as well as controversies and criticisms, caused the ratings to decline, though it still ended on solid ground. On Netflix, the series was successful, not only in South Korea but also internationally. On Wavve, it consistently topped the charts throughout the eight weeks of airing. So, it is not true that the series was received badly in South Korea. It topped the charts in Netflix South Korea and Wavve. It was only on SBS, and only after the premiere week-end, did the ratings decline, though not as low as it has been painted out to be. CherryPie94's lede section puts the SBS post-premiere low ratings on equal footing as the series' success on Netflix South Korea + Wavve + international market put together, effectively downplaying the latter. The nonequivalence is appalling. I am really tired of this dispute, but one of my goals as an editor is to safeguard Wikipedia's integrity and cannot allow a smear campaign like this to persist. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Lizzydarcy2008 is very biased fans.. what the prove for her arguments Wikipedia is used as a tool for a smear campaign? that's a very serious accusation. I've seen Lizzydarcy2008 very biased and the changes she made were very nice for the drama, not neutral at all. i will only remind this once. Be careful Phil Bridger because Lizzydarcy2008 seems to be distorting the facts. Just because other people's opinions (votes) did not match her wishes, she called it a smear campaign. TheUntamedTVSeries 00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I just realized why CherryPie94 and now TheUntamedTVSeries are accusing me of being a biased fan. Because the facts I presented could not be refuted, I was instead attacked personally. TheUntamedTVSeries can you tell me which of the items I mentioned distorted facts? I am a fan of many dramas and movies. But have I gotten into a discussion like this over the others? No, because I didn't see anything wrong in their writeups. The fact is that the lede section of this drama is more negative than what the facts present, so attempts to remove the negativity is seen as "nice" and "biased" by those who are not familiar with the facts. Compare the lede section of this drama with those of other kdramas and you will be appalled at how negative it is. I compare this page with those of other kdramas and not just with other types of shows because whether we like it or not, readers will compare this drama with other kdramas, as I did, which was how I noticed the negativity. A smear campaign is indeed serious, which is why I am taking this case seriously. I have explained the smear campaign and sabotage in earlier discussions and would most likely be accused of writing "walls of text" if I repeat them here, so please check the Talk section of this drama. Please also see this complaint of Rating sabotage in https://community-imdb.sprinklr.com/conversations/imdbcom/rating-sabotage/5f5fccf26880ca11de80de18. If you also care to read comments in MyDramalist, there are similar observations about fans of actors smearing or sabotaging dramas of rival actors (the site is triggering a protection filter so I cannot add the link here, but if you are curious, please see discussions 2 months ago in Backstreet Rookie). The comment section of The King on MyDramalist was infiltrated by saboteurs who loved calling it a flop. The internet is crawling with bad press about this drama, e.g. there are several articles saying the drama tanked on Netflix which is obviously false since it was successful on Netflix and the articles don't even attempt to give proof of the alleged poor performance on Netflix. If you search for this drama on google, the questions that appear on "People also ask" section are about this drama being a flop, indicating how bad the smear campaign had been. A newspaper called this drama a flop several episodes away from the finale, showing how eager some quarters were to label this drama and ignore its streaming success. It will be noted that both Backstreet Rookie and It's Okay To Not be Okay were faring even worse than this drama but rallied in the finale, indicating that until a drama has aired its finale, labelling it a flop is premature and malicious, effectively sabotaging that drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, I'm not attacking you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. I'm just tired of repeatedly telling you for the past few months that your edits and edit-suggestions has been biased and unneutral so far; removing paragraphs for no reason (Diff 1, Diff 2), deliberately changing neutral word to discouraged words on sentences you disagree with even though you were previously told about such guidelines (Diff 1, Diff 2), adding puffery such as "stunning second quarter performance" and "extremely popular" (Diff 1, Diff 2), using "hounded by" and "beset with" to undermine criticism and included your words that were not even stated on the sources (Diff 1, Diff 2). Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs and to promote ideas or beliefs. You should read Wp:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content and WP:LISTEN, and you should really question whether your intensions are honestly to present facts or your opinion of how the series should be viewed. The series facing a "smear campaign" is your opinion and motive to edit the page, but that has not be report by any news media (reliable or not) to my knowledge and holds no ground on Wikipedia as that is advocacy and original research. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, you make sure to introduce me to editors new to this dispute as a biased fan, effectively smearing my credibility and coloring other editors' perception of me. I am a fan of many kdramas and movies, but this is the only one I got into a discussion for like this. Being a fan of kdramas does not make one lose a sense of justice and proportion. In fact, it gave me perspective that other disinterested editors may not have, such as knowing this page is the most negative kdrama page on Wikipedia. Being a kdrama fan also made me know this drama is not as bad and a failure as its page is making it out to be. Is Wikipedia supposed to be merely a parrot where it just reports whatever is online? In that case, since, by definition, smear campaigns involve the generation of large quantities of negative materials, then, being a parrot, Wikipedia would tend to be a tool of smear campaigns. Furthermore, in this parrot mode, Wikipedia would not even need editors. It just needs an aggregator algorithm to collect whatever information is available online and present them according to some format. But as editors, we are supposed to be "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources" per WP:WIKIVOICE. What you dismiss as "my opinions" are results of hours of research and analyses.

Regarding your litany of my past edits, aside from just parroting negative statements online, the page of this drama also mentions negative aspects multiple times. The low domestic ratings are mentioned at least three times on the page in addition to the dedicated Ratings section where you added more tables about viewership in the middle of this dispute. The high production budget is also mentioned three times. I had been trying to delete the repetitions to reduce the negativity of the page, but my attempts had been undone. Also, please check those deletions more closely. Some are movements of sentences/paragraphs to more logical places on the page. Regarding "puffery", remarks about the extreme success of this drama had been deleted, so saying "extremely popular" was an attempt to give due weight to this under-reported achievement. The phrase about the "stunning performance" was about the "record-breaking second quarter earnings". So I guess "record-breaking" is acceptable, but not "stunning"? These are moot points anyway since, like other positive remarks about this drama, they had been removed. Regarding the phrases "beset with" and "hounded by", considering that the controversies and criticisms kept getting publicized even after the production team had apologized for them and given explanations, these phrases captured the situation appropriately. Regarding the use of words like "surmise" and "claim", please note that WP:Claim merely says these are "words to watch", not banned. The statements in question are opinions, some of which had been proven wrong. For example, the statement "the development of the plot, the editing and the forced scenes were the reasons the series failed to increase its ratings" is wrong in that it does not include a major reason for the low ratings - the rise in streaming services. In this case, "surmise" is a more appropriate word than "explain" since it is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and the statement is not only unverifiable, it had actually been proven wrong. Come to think of it, since this and similar statements had been proven wrong, why do they still need to be on the page? Oh, I forgot - Wikipedia is a parrot.

Now that all points against me have been explained for the nth time, creating another distraction and generating more "walls of text", let's focus on the real issue. I have listed the flaws of version A of the lede section. What others may call "walls of text" are earnest attempts to explain those flaws and respond to the comments. Yet I still have not received point-by-point comments about version B as I had given on version A. I am still awaiting a thorough explanation of why a flawed version (version A) would be chosen over the result of research and critical analysis (version B). Instead of accusations of me being a fan as well as a litany of my past edits, which I had given explanations for previously and above, the focus needs to be on the merits and flaws of the two versions presented. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, I think this is my last message here, since you started diverting to other issues and the discussion is going in circles. What you are doing is synthesis of published material; reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the sources. Also, “Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information.” Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies, and you are going against them with your edits. Wikipedia doesn’t lead, it follows (parroting as you call it). CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, we're going around in circles because you keep repeating your accusations of me being a fan and a litany of my past edits even after I had already answered them. Up to now, nobody still has answered my question of why Wikipedia would choose a flawed version A over version B that has such flaws removed. Can you point out anything in version B that was not well-sourced or based on Wikipedia rules? Please re-read WP:WIKIVOICE that states, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources..." Careful and critical analysis is what makes human editors different from automated aggregator algorithms or parrots. Analysis does not mean coming up with your own opinion but making sure the finished product conforms to Wikipedia rules such as fairness, giving due weights to views, avoiding stating opinions as facts, using nonjudgmental language, etc. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, listen, Nangears already answered you in the RFC of Second Paragraph of Lede, go read it there. As for the RFC on Reception section, users already wrote their opinion that they found version A more neutral next to their vote, they don't have to go point-by-point and explain it to you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, Michaelelijahtanuwijaya left no comments. Nangears mentioned lack of balance of version B. From his arguments, there is a misconception that the weight of low domestic ratings is equivalent to the drama's success in Wavve + Netflix South Korea + Netflix international all put together. This is the nonequivalence that version A espouses. Please read my responses to his comments. Revolutionaery suggested another version that has acceptable first and second sentences, but succeeding sentences also suffer from the same nonequivalence, not to mention containing the word "claim" that you have a problem with. In addition, saying the drama "failed to impress audiences" is false considering the drama's success in Netflix and Wavve. Nangears and Revolutionery both gave suggestions on how to improve the paragraph that I partly agree with. However, the main issues that triggered this dispute in the first place - giving more weight to low ratings than warranted and downplaying the international success - are still not resolved. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, again, I think Nangears already talked about this point and explained why the TV rating is given due weight, so I will give a short answer. The problem is not “giving more weight to low ratings than warranted” as TV ratings was the most talked about aspect in reliable news, the problem is that you don’t want to accept that most reliable sources did extensively talk about it and it was given due weight on the page, while “international success” in Netflix (Wavve is Korean and can’t be used outside of Korea, so it is not international platform) news almost all come from unreliable sources and thus given undue weight because it has not reliable source backing it. I asked multiple of times in different noticeboards and was told not to use flixpetrol data or Netflix daily top 10 country charts and to wait for the end-of-year Netflix reports (still a few months and we will include Netflix success if they report it in January). For now, we include what is reliable and wait for more news, instead of adding unreliable claims and be biased in trying to make the series seem like it was the biggest success this year when reliable sources (Korean and western) criticized it and marked it as a TV failure compared to what was expected in term of viewership ratings.

All the people who votes in the RFC were all against your changes, so you should really listen and accept that all of them do not agree with you, instead of repeating the same points again. As Robert McClenon said to you before, “ Do you really think that, if you haven't made your points by stating them twice, you will make them by calling everyone and stating them a third time? Sometimes if the points you are trying to convey do not get through, it is because other editors disagree.” CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, first, you make a point of introducing me as a biased fan and putting a spin on my past edits, smearing my credibility. Second, editors who tried to remove the negativity of this page have been blocked. I don't mean the sockpuppets but naive editors like me who were unaware of power games played on Wikipedia and were tricked into edit wars and blocked, as you had tried to do with me. This is why I asked before, how sure are we that those who vote on surveys are impartial? Now I know. Getting through prejudices and misconceptions is the hardest thing in the world. Just now, you have blocked out everything I just said about the need of Wikipedia editors to analyze sources and not just parrot everything they see online, especially in this age of fake news and smear campaigns.

If Wikipedia editors just weigh the significance of items based on how many search results come up, it would be a tool of misinformation and smear campaigns. Even if we discount smear campaigns, logic still gives a reason for the "extensive talk" about the low ratings of this drama. This drama first aired from April 17 to June 12. This period is when the drama became most popular, thus generated most talk. At this point, nobody had an idea of why the show was "failing", so a lot of speculations abounded. Information about the main reason for the low domestic TV ratings, the surge of popularity of Netflix in April, as well as other well-sourced testaments to the international success of this drama became available only after the second quarter of the year, after the drama finale aired, after its popularity subsided. Armed with these new facts, why continue to sow misinformation?

Knowing what we know now about this drama, this paragraph is clearly negatively unbalanced - its international success is not only the last item in a super-long sentence but is in quotes ("hit Netflix drama") lowering its credibility. In addition, the lower-than-expected domestic ratings in the second sentence preceded by "On the other hand" puts it on equal footing with all the successes in the first sentence. As I had said, I don't deny that the domestic TV broadcast rating of this drama got lower after the premiere; I even mention it in version B. What I object to is the undue weight it is being given in version A. No matter how much you try to discredit this fact, it is plain for every unbiased and informed reader to see. Regarding sources, Version B does not reference Flixpatrol. It references reliable sources, notably testaments of the production studio itself about the streaming success of this drama. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008 I did not put a spin to your previous changes, you actually did them and your edit history shows those biased disruptive changes. You were a sleeper account that came back just to blank the controversy section multiple times for no reason, how do you explain that then? You blanked it until you were warned by others about edit warring, you then disregarded the warning after a few weeks and even went on to edit war with me. No one was tricked to edit war, if someone is edit-warring it is their mistake, not other’s scheme. Everyone receives warnings before being banned, whether they ignore the warning or not is their own decision and they should face the consequences. Also, please do not discredit the people who took their time to vote and reply to you on the RFCs, simply, because they did not vote for your version.

Again, there was never a smear campaign against the series and you have no source backing that up. Saving the series from “fake news/smear campaign/hate” is advocacy and a biased reason you have been repeating for months, using it to make your changes seem neutral, while in reality it is all your false opinion which goes under original research and hold no ground on Wikipedia. As for the second paragraph about the rating and international success, Nangears and I already answered you about that on the RFC, so I will not bother repeating it, go read it there and stop repeating points you have already stated and has been answered multiple times. It is your problem if you want to ignore the answers given to you many times.

To the admins, “When advocacy is not disclosed, it often manifests through behaviors such as tendentious editing, stonewalling, argumentum ad nauseam, or ignoring the opinions of others. When such behavior occurs over a length of time, advocacy is often the cause.” This is the case here and currently the discussion reached argumentum ad nauseam. I don’t think I will reply anymore unless an admin pings me here. We really need intervention, if either of us is wrong then tell us and end this 5 month-long dispute, so that we can go back to editing the page instead of this standstill. One of the RFCs already ended with a a unanimous decision and I want to edit the page and include the version with the consensus. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, please re-read my responses to the meanings you put (your spins) on my past edits. As I had mentioned several times, my main aim is to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia. I started editing this drama's page upon noticing its negative lean, especially after reading other web sources mention sabotage being staged against it. Please re-read my past comments about this. The controversies were among the tools used by saboteurs. You keep saying that the "smear campaign" is my personal opinion, ignoring my past comments about this. Guess what, smear campaigns don't come labelled as such. Here's a sample; google this drama and "tanked on Netflix". One of the search results is from "reliable" news site scmp.com. Note this is fake news since the series was in fact successful on Netflix. Read the article; it doesn't provide any proof of the allegation. Check out other "well-sourced" articles on this drama's Wikipedia page that did not mention the main reason, the rise of streaming platforms, in their speculations about the reason for the low ratings. You keep accusing me of "advocacy", your personal opinion. Is it advocacy to make sure Wikipedia is not made a tool of smear campaigns? Regarding edit wars, you seem to have forgotten you started our last edit war by updating the title of a section while this dispute was going on, violating WP:DRN Rule A and WP:DRN Rule B. In fact you made other more massive edits in the middle of this dispute. Why you did not get reprimanded or subjected to other forms of disciplinary action is beyond me.

But we got sidetracked again with personal attacks, creating more "walls of text". May we focus on the drama please? At this point in time, these are the things we know about the drama: it was highly anticipated, had high domestic TV premiere ratings but competition from Netflix and Wavve as well as controversies and criticisms affected the ratings. It was a streaming success, both locally and internationally, and was cited as one of the factors for the record-breaking second quarter earnings of its production company.

Which of the two versions encapsulate this UP-TO-DATE summary? Please see my previous post for details about recent news about this drama. We need to make sure Wikipedia does not sow misinformation by getting bogged down in OUTDATED perceptions. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Incivility by Deacon Vorbis

I very recently had an interaction with Deacon Vorbis which started out mildly brusque, and ended with strong vulgarity directed at me personally, which by my standards I never consider civil.

My recent interaction started at Template talk:Radic#Improving_appearance. In the course of conversation, Deacon Vorbis helped me understand the context in which this template was being used, and to refine my proposal. I thought they were being a little pushy when they started demanding I delete the file I had just created to explain what I was proposing, but I tried to focus on discussing the proposed changes. They didn't support my proposal, which is fine, and said any changes "would at the very least need a pretty strong consensus – from more than the few people that are watching this template." (14:35, 21 September 2020) I agreed to solicit more opinions, but after a couple more back-and-forth refinements, I read this:

It's not broken and it doesn't need to be fixed. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. Please just let it go already. (02:15, 22 September 2020) Paul Augustx.php?title=Template_talk:Radic&diff=979667355&oldid=979663755&diffmode=source diff

It's fine to disagree with a proposal, but I started to feel like I was being bullied into not seeking the opinions of other editors. That seems inappropriate in a consensus-driven community. I often seek the opinion of at least a third editor if a one-on-one conversation gets stuck with both editors being fully informed but just coming to different conclusions (usually because they weight different factors differently). In this case, I continued the conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Improving rendering of radical symbol and found several editors seemed to agree with the refined proposal and who had some constructive things to add.

When Deacon Vorbis joined this thread, the first thing they said was:

Eh, I said a hell of a lot more than that it would be a waste of time, and oversimplifying my rationale like that is kind of dishonest. (17:42, 22 September 2020) diff

I think the way I referred to the previous conversation was fair, especially given I wasn't trying to vote on someone else's behalf and that I cross-linked the conversations to disintermediate myself, but I apologized anyway because the sensation of someone else putting words in your mouth, even unintentionally, is never pleasant. I leave it to the reader to judge that in context whether this was a fair complaint or if it was Deacon Vorbis assuming bad faith. Anyway, I didn't think too many people would care about this math typography issue, so I tried documenting what seemed like a quick snowballing consensus in the Manual of Style. That resulted in this exchange:

@Deacon Vorbis: I see you reverted the addition using a minced vulgarity as an edit summary. I don't think this was appropriate, both in terms of civility and because so far editors seem to prefer that solution 3 to 1. This WikiProject and the Mathematics MOS page are the places I can think of that are most likely to find editors interested in these issues. Is there some other forum you think should be alerted to this proposal to test for consensus? -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff, revert being referred to

Really? You're going to complain over "BS"? Really? The fact is, you should just drop this. Trying to steamroll longstanding practice by 3 people is not appropriate. This isn't a problem that needs fixing. And I don't have the energy to devote to arguing over this constantly. I'm doing other things here. You haven't even remotely fucking listened to a word I've said in earlier discussions, just plowing ahead with your fingers in your ears, and it's tiring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff

Another editor much more politely suggested we give the proposal more time before considering the consensus to be firm, and that's an entirely fair request which I honored. And I filed an RFC as suggested by yet another editor, just to cast an extra-wide net to affirm consensus.

From my perspective it seems like every time I don't do something Deacon Vorbis wants, they just get angrier and more strongly demand that I follow their commands. But I feel like compliance for the sake of calming them down would mean not solving a problem which so far a supermajority of editors agree is a problem that should be solved, albeit minor. So this anger loop ends up harming the project, which is why I opened this report. My concerns about a toxic atmosphere were deepened and I was also more motivated to report this when I saw another editor (I don't remember on which talk page) complaining that they often ran into difficult people when editing mathematics articles and sometimes avoided participating because of that. I'd say the same thing about style pages, and I assume that's why the relevant page (MOS:MATH) is under discretionary sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. Yes, I'm fucking human, and yes, when I get the sense that I'm talking to a brick fucking wall, I might let my fucking frustration show and drop a fucking F-bomb. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fucking great work, DV. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: I would never say anyone's feelings are wrong, and I've had the same reaction when dealing with certain people in text exchanges like this. Usually, for the sake of maintaining a productive conversation, when drafting my reply I ignore those feelings or wait until they pass. If it gets quite bad or I feel it would be helpful to express those feelings, I try to do so using civil language, like "I found your response frustrating because..." Getting loud and swearing a lot and calling people names might be a natural response and acceptable for a venue like a protest or a bar, but not for a civil discussion forum like a library or NPR or Wikipedia talk pages. That said, we should be able to work through disagreements without getting frustrated at each other, and I'd like to work to resolve the source of that frustration. I don't think it was fair when you said I hadn't read a word you said, as I found many of your responses quite helpful in terms of information content, and greatly improved my proposal. When you say it feels like you were talking to a brick wall, was that because I failed to drop this matter as you requested? -- Beland (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: I find your description of the issue difficult to follow. In the places above which you claim to be quotes, could you give diffs please? And could you also please mark them as quotes, by either using quotation marks (as you did for the first one) or better yet templates like "tq2" or "tq"? Paul August ☎ 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: Done. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Enough of the swearing comments guys. I would say Beland it seems that you are over reacting a lot. I agree that DV's revert of you with that comment is very unhelpful and unproductive, don't understand what he thinks was going to happen, since nearly everyone would just revert him until he gives a proper reason. From what you have said and provided so far it seems an like overreaction. But I stand to be corrected if you give us more examples of actual incivility. I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Personal attacks before continuing with this one. Games of the world (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Deacon Vorbis, none of this is acceptable behavior from you, including your comment above, and if you cannot treat Beland with respect, then I would advise avoiding him and his edits, or the subject(s) that are in contention. There are other editors who can respond to him civilly and without vulgarity, and can focus on content and policy rather than personal attacks and insults. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have had many problems with Deacon vorbis and his disruptive behavior. He has edit warred with me consistently for the past month. His behavior at AfD is extremely disruptive, he has erased my comments, hatted my comments, moved comments, and he has messed with other editor's !votes. On one AfD he enlarged his !vote to 300% size with a sophomoric edit summary mine's bigger so it counts more here. I have tried to discuss with the edotor and have even sent him an olive branch, however the editor continued to be hostile. I will just provide the two edit warring reports for anyone who is interested. Here. and here DV will edit war until he is reported then revert himself with uncivil edit summaries. You can follow the many links in the edit warring reports to see the incivility and my efforts to discuss. Even here his language is uncivil. I would support sanctions against this editor, and perhaps a 1RR. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, your incivility is plain to see:

• Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI - NPA, ABF (1).
• DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late - PERSONAL, INCIV, ASP (2)
• Stealth deletion is for real. Nobody of the keepers from the prior vote was aware or showed up. The usual suspects voted delete. An agenda fulfilled. - BATTLE (Us vs Them in particular), ASP (3)

• What I am struggling to find in the many links is the efforts to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude. That last green quote is not from me ^. FYI: if you think the behavior of DV is fine carry on. I have found him to be disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies, you are correct, that comment came from another user. Struck. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr Rnddue I would still be concerned with link 2 and DV's edit summary again very uncivil and not language you would expect to find. Games of the world (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

From looking into the evidence that Lightburst has given, the first one I think DV was just trying to be funny, although probably not the correct forum for it. DV should stop trying to alter other people's comments by removing them or moving them, even if he feels that it is a PA or affects the flow. Lightburst you cannot revert an edit in which DV removes his own posts that is as above altering other people's comments. In addition you should refrain from comments about others behaviour, I wouldn't say it was an attack worthy of action in either case but come on you can't make an accusation and then complain about his reaction. Overall DV needs to stop swearing in edit summaries and take a moment before he posts and read some of the policies around discussions to stop tedious edit wars, take note of Beland's comment to you. Lightburst needs to stop trying to provoke him with comments about him at deletion discussions. Games of the world (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

right there is supposed to be a bright line of 3rr, apparently not any more because no action was taken when he crossed that line four times in the past month. DV regularly crosses 3rr. I think you are correct in saying that I reached a level of frustration with his behavior and esp his warring. He regular wars to his preferred version. It was mentioned by another editor above, and by Green Means Go, and by his previous block earlier this year for 3rr. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My 2c: "BS" is not a "minced vulgarity" or a "vulgarity" at all. It's not even the kind of profanity that is censored on television. I disagree with folks who want everyone else to not use profanity because they are sensitive to profanity. Certainly there are some words that should never be used, like racial epithets, but complaining about "BS"? That's just total BS. Lev!vich 18:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It sure looks like a minced oath to me. These are exactly the terms that are allowed on American broadcast television in place of those that would otherwise be censored. This is not the standard Wikipedia uses; much of what is allowed on American broadcast television is not at all civil. I'd argue even a less vulgar edit summary like "this is hogwash" or "ridiculous" is not particularly civil, as it's being insulting instead of or in addition to being explanatory or productive. A more civil summary would be something like "no consensus for this change" or "needs to be discussed more" or "I strongly disagree; see talk page". -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. What about Pigeon chess? Just one of his uncivil edit summaries. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First time I've heard that term but yes, this is starting to feel like pigeon chess. Lev!vich 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It took me a minute to figure out what you were referring to: this edit summary. I mean, heck, let's talk about all of them. The 300% size increase "DELETE AS IS" is a comment on Dream Focus's long habit of always !voting an all-caps "KEEP", in the case of the AFD at issue, "KEEP ALL", which I do kind of find mildly annoying, I wonder if DF thinks that the !vote will count more if it's in all caps. But DV's 300% size increase !vote in response to that isn't uncivil; it's a way of making a point with humor, and acceptable in my view if it's a one-off (as opposed to increasing the size for every AFD !vote, which of course isn't the case). As to the two ANEWs you linked to (the second one involving the "pigeon chess" edit summary), I can see why they weren't actioned by an admin. It's true that edit warring over the removal or removal of uncivil or off-topic comments isn't great, the substantive comments of yours that DV was removing/hatting did contain personal attacks, by you, against DV. In the first, you accused DV of following you (no diffs), and in the second you accused DV of "disruptive", "hostile", and "tendentious" editing (again no diffs). These are inappropriate comments to be making in AFDs. I'm actually, again, disappointed to be reading these, Lightburst. After two recent ANI threads about your fellow ARS members' making inappropriate comments at AFDs, here we see recent diffs in September of you casting aspersions against editors you disagree with at AFDs. You all need to stop attacking people at AFDs, or you're all going to get TBANed from AFDs. Lev!vich 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also want to report personal harassment behavior by Deacon Vorbis.

[a] On Sep 19, I added a simple comment to section "3 Squarefree" on Deacon Vorbis's talk page. I wanted to relieve the "decision pressure" in naming something clearly (i.e., the wording "non-squarefree") with 2 contradictory definitions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=prev&oldid=979187995) This post stayed undisturbed until Sep 23. No objections.

[b] On Sep 23, I discovered that the editing interface had changed the string "defs" (definitions) into "refs" via autocorrect likely while saving. That's not what I intended to write. So, I changed "refs" back to "defs". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeacon_Vorbis&type=revision&diff=979808535&oldid=979807310)

[c] This was almost immediately reverted to the previous version by Deacon Vorbis with the reasoning "Don't edit others' commennts". (XX) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979808535). I assume that this action was in error. Note however, the above reasoning (XX) is difficult to explain (it's off-reality), since my contribution was properly signed, and there was no other contribution than the original question and mine in that section.

[d] I reversed again in good faith replacing "refs" by the intended more clearly written "definitions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979810197) Also, I gave a detailed explanation for Deacon Vorbis to understand:

<< I wanted to write "defs", a shortcut for "definitions", as "refs" is a shortcut for "references". Autocorrect seemingly changed that to "refs" while saving. I then changed the letter r back to d as I had typed. This reflects my typing at the time, and what I intend/ intended to express. I find your revert not acceptable. >>

[e] Here comes the personal harassment. Deacon Vorbis immediately deleted my whole contribution which, obviously, seemed acceptable to him when he assumed that someone else had contributed it (XX). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979812115) The change of mind happened within ~15 minutes. At the time when the version (XX) above was generated, Deacon Vorbis let the contribution stand. Only after recognizing that it was my contribution (thus, it's personal), the contribution was removed. This claim of personal attack is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by Deacon Vorbis' reasoning for the removal:

<< oh, it was yours...responding to something stale and pointless; rm >>

"oh, it was yours" proves an anti-person motivation, since the same contribution was acceptable 15 mins before. The remainder of the wording is demeaning.

LMSchmitt 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Beland, Have you ever thought of maybe starting an RFC on it ? That would solve all of your problems, Bullshit thread should be closed. Keep up the fucking great work Deacon Vorbis. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 three editors have come here saying that DV is uncivil but you call for a close? Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I see nothing that warrants any sanctions or even a thread at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my initial post, I did start an RFC, though so far no one who did not participate in the Mathematics Wikiproject conversation has commented on it. The problem was not finding enough opinions; the problem was that Deacon Vorbis objected to me seeking more opinions and then started responding in a verbally abusive manner when I did so over his objection. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies Beland you did indeed start an RFC. I'm still not seeing anything worth sanctioning over, Alls I'm seeing is mild frustration from DV but again nothing really sanctionable, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer a frank conversation and rehabilitation to sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure if Deacon were a newly registered editor, an indeff. would come swiftly and case closed, especially if the editor was showing a continuous amount of disruptive behavior like frequent cursing. That alone would've been enough for an indeff on a new editor despite being asked to stop by multiple editors. Let's be real here, we as veteran editors don't engage in discussions that involves cursing because it's uncivil, a contradiction to behavioral policy, immature, and overall, beneath us as Wikipedians. @Deacon Vorbis:, you've survived four years of editing. You should know this already. I know you can do better than the behavior you're currently displaying in this discussion. Happy editing & cheers to everyone. Jerm (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You could have picked most of the discussions off this page tbh and made the above stick. Agree that everyone should be held to the same standard. He has never been warned for this from what I can see. Best solution here would be warnings all-round and then hit them if they do it again. Games of the world (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Speaking of the alleged harassment, that depends on perception by the "targets". Typically, the harassment is defined as "unwanted behavior that you find offensive". So, if people are telling in a good faith they have been harassed, this is true. What might be a reason for saying the F... word so many times right on this noticeboard? I think it is obvious: the accused contributor wants to trivialize such expression, thus making it more acceptable. Yes, that may be acceptable for some people, but not others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Looking at Deacon Vorbis' long contribution history, it appears there are many positive contributions, and dealing with other editors acting inappropriately. But there are also other instances of antagonistic behavior, typically aggressive removal or dismissal of messages from other users, inappropriate language, and edit warring. I would hope these behavioral problems could be resolved simply by having a constructive conversation about the harm they doing to the project and how to avoid that while still contributing constructively. And I think being less offensive and aggressive and more conversational would reduce the number of negative reactions from other editors, and increase the number of cooperative edits made after a smooth dispute resolution. Examples:
  • The block log shows they were blocked in January 2020 for a 3RR violation, and in July 2018 for a vulgar personal attack they refused to apologize for (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988), saying the victim deserved it.
  • Example of removal of a talk page message: this case where I think it's worth considering whether the answer to the user's question would be a good addition to the article, and the question highlights a problem with the article lacking references to sources where their question could be answered. (The user wrote as much in response to the deletion but was ignored.) At the very least they could be referred to the reference desk rather than being completely censored, and that could turn up some citations for the article.
  • Here is an example of an unnecessary personal insult. The content that Inedible Hulk posted was indeed weird, though I probably would have replied to it or ignored it rather than deleting it claiming it was "disruptive". I don't find the deletion unacceptable, but I do find the caustic language used on the talk page to be.
  • More gratuitous and uncivil language in edit summaries - "agreed my ass" "agreed, my bloated buttocks
  • Another incident where agressive removal led to an edit war and ANI complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive375#Deacon_Vorbis_reported_by_User:Count_Iblis
  • Edit warring over a speedy deletion and archival cleanup: [27] and complaint
  • Another incident of removing another user's talk post: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Deacon_Vorbis_censoring_the_math_ref_desk
  • An incident that combined overly aggressively removing another user's post and then using uncivil language in edit summaries during the fallout: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#Possible_compromised_administrator_account

-- Beland (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never interacted with this user until a few days ago. However, since my previous comment here, he reverted/modified my legitimate edit on AfD 3 times: [28], [29],[30]. On a scale of confrontational behavior from 1 to 10, I would give him 6, at least in this episode. Note that he does it during a standing ANI thread about him. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Another incident of don't edit others contributions on talk pages/discussions! DV needs to participate here and not continue to edit other people's comments at discussion/talk pages. He should be give a short block just for that, irrespective of any civility issues, since he will not engage with this thread about his behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, he just changed my AfD talk page comment again by moving it to another part of discussion [31], even after all my explanations on their talk page [32]. He is hopeless. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Deacon Vorbis: you are certainly on notice that Beland does not enjoy vulgarities, so I would urge you in direct communications with them to eschew the saltier language. Beland, I mean this with all due respect, but less-than-solicitous language is perfectly standard on Wikipedia. I would urge you to let a bit more roll off your back. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  I rarely encounter such language on Wikipedia and it certainly shouldn't be standard or accepted, as it creates problems with editor retention and may even be contributing to the gender imbalance in the editor population. If I were a sensitive person, I wouldn't be here complaining, I'd just stop editing Wikipedia and go do something where no one is swearing at me for trying to help. Excessive conflict, edit warring, and bullying are problematic for editors of any gender, but have been specifically identified as reasons why some women don't edit Wikipdia. Check out points 4 and 5 at Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words). -- Beland (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you in an idealistic sort of sense, but I am also afraid your normative statements don't hold any more sway than anyone else's. We will have to agree to disagree here, as in my short time on the planet, I have seen more harm from policing speech than allowing it (not that either position is harm-free). I would continue to urge my previous advice to you, but you are absolutely free to ignore it, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I generally am a strong supporter of free speech, but incivility is not a type of speech which it's appropriate to tolerate in all circumstances. If I were to call my boss an f-ing liar, I would risk getting fired. If a prosecutor were to call a defense attorney the same thing, there would be trouble from the judge. Workplaces like an office or courtroom or Wikipedia are not forums for free speech like the town common or Twitter. They are places to get things done, which require calmness and cooperation to a level not required by political or public discourse. I'm also curious how you would suggest addressing the issues that the women commenting in that article say are push them away from Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean that there is any sort of legal right to free speech on Wikipedia, simply that such a regime is closer to what I believe works best for the site. And Wikipedia needs to be collegial, indeed, but is often also an adversarial place. There's a reason zealous advocacy is a part of the common law legal tradition, and it's because adversarial zealous advocacy is considered an efficient way of getting somewhere close to the truth. Again, this is simply something on which we will have to agree to disagree. More to the point, it strikes me that you are trying to enforce a set of mores (or at least boundaries to existing mores) that are not shared by and large here. We don't define incivility down to the most sensitive user, nor should we judge it by the most jaded. In essence, much of this strikes me as "par for the course." It's a thorny question what to do about getting more women on Wikipedia, but I am hopeful that more engagement by women here will have a bit of a snowball effect. I don't know if I would agree to an attempt to fix the noted problems in a top-down sort of way. Even the best-intentioned power structures often lead to exclusion or oppression of less-privileged groups. I will be the first to admit I don't have all the answers, or, indeed, very good ones when I do have them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"And Wikipedia needs to be collegial" The article Beland linked to already contains complains that we are at war with each other much too often: " “From the inside,” writes Justine Cassell, professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, “Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased. Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must have to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one.”" I don't think Deacon Vorbis' tendency to voice his frustration by adding "fucking" to random sentences is particularly helpful in building a collegial environment. Wikipedia:Civility advises against such behavior: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Is the process we are currently engaging in top-down or bottom-up? I think of it as a peer-to-peer nudge to be better. The idea that women getting involved with Wikipedia will "snowball" seems like wishful thinking without any evidence. Why wouldn't it have happened already? It's not like there are large numbers of women who don't know what Wikipedia is. Why would it happen for women but not men, especially given the culture of Wikipedia seems to be disproportionately distasteful for women? I do agree that cooperative adversarial processes can improve articles, but the adversarial common law tradition in America has a stricter standard for civility that what you're advocating for Wikipedia, and that's part of what makes it work to the degree that it does. -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Beland, by "top-down" I mean asking for an authority to do something about it. Nudging is per se fine by me, and I think I may even have engaged in it to a small degree. As for the "sbnowball" effect, it certainly is wishful thinking to some degree, but I am allowed that after all! I am not sure the answer to women on Wikipedia is any sort of precipitous action, but I could probably be persuaded otherwise. And while you're correct that there's a stricter lexicon of civility in the American tradition, I am not sure that actually translates to a stricter standard. Most of that is more in the realm of norms and traditions, which are as often overlooked as honored. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• • +1. I would add: the continued edit warring to refactor someone else's comments is problematic. DV, I think it's OK for editors to add addenda to their own comments in the form of a self-reply, even if the self-reply is above other replies to their original comment. I see editors do this all the time and I don't think anything in the PAGs forbids this. Even if you're right, it's not a WP:3RRNO reason, and you're past 3RR. Lev!vich 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    @Levivich: Modifying a comment after it's been responded to, changing the context and meaning of that reply is far far worse. From WP:REDACT, "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." WP:THREAD also has further guidance on good practice, which I tried to point out, and no acknowledgement was made, despite asking for one. I'm not okay with comments I respond to getting major changes after the fact. My moving the comment was the least invasive way of keeping the chronology of the comments intact. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry, but no DV. The edit you are repeatedly reverting is not about modifying a comment. It was a new comment, separately signed with a timestamp, and you're edit warring whether the comment can be below the original comment and above prior replies, or below the prior replies. What you quoted from REDACT has nothing to do with it, nor does THREAD address this. And even if you're right, you're past 3RR and that in and of itself is a problem. You're spamming my watchlist over it, which is how I noticed it, as I'm sure others have. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here. Lev!vich 23:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before. THREAD addresses exactly that situation. No, I shouldn't edit war over this, but I also shouldn't have to in the first place. The fact is we have a weird, finnicky talk page system, and we do our best to try to maintain some semblance of organization to discussions, especially complicated ones. 3RR shouldn't be a sword of Damocles against someone who's trying to maintain stuff. Modifying the substance of someone's comments is far more serious than modifying the formatting, and that's exactly what the misthreading was doing (whatever you want to call it, elaboration, modification, new comment, whatever). I have no other recourse to the context of my comments being changed after the fact than to simply fix it in line with current practices. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    If you find someone has reverted your change to their comments, and you still feel strongly about putting it back the way you want, why don't you just politely discuss with them the best way to use the talk page syntax? One possible compromise is to add pointers where the comment was moved from and to. -- Beland (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

    I tried to (a discussion which was initiated by MVBW, to be fair); see User Talk:Deacon Vorbis#Modifying comments by other contributors on AfD. I probably wouldn't object to something like Please see an additional comment that elaborates on this below the subsequent replies" tacked onto the end of the current comment, as long as the new comment stays after. That possibility hadn't occurred to me, but I have no way of knowing of MVBW would accept it...doing this on my own would have been a more invasive modification to the original, which I was again trying to minimize. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    Honestly, this should be an easy one. Don't edit, move, adjust, or tweak others' comments. Full stop. Just don't do it. If you think they've done something in error, by all means, point it out. This behavior, is, to me, FAR more offensive than all the F-bombs in the world. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

     

    If you want to know what would be an acceptable compromise to the other party, the thing to do is ask. There are plenty of other possible compromises the two of you could come up with if you had stopped to think about it and weren't angrily undoing each other's changes. That's why I would have started the conversation after I was reverted once, whereas you reverted MVBW three more times after it was clear there was a dispute. Though they weren't following the convention strictly, it was pretty clear to me what was responding to what when, especially given that all the messages have timestamps, so I don't see a strong argument for objecting to what MVBW was doing. That sort of pushiness is equivalent to the in-person action of grabbing someone by the elbow while they're on a soapbox and moving them to somewhere they don't want to be. Even if they're not in the conventional location, it's perceived as strongly anti-social behavior. And it's really not worth the fistfight that ensues when everyone should be paying attention to the words that are said and not picky details about how the speech is being delivered. If you actually think it is important enough to argue about, wait until a third editor has weighed in to the conversation to validate one side or another. Either there will be much less resistance to the change you are proposing when it becomes clear it's not just you who holds that opinion, or the third editor will disagree with you and you can politely concede and avoid being accused of unreasonableness or vindictiveness or whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    "If it's a new comment, then the writer of it doesn't get to shove it (with some weird large random indent level) in front of other comments that were already made before." That's not exactly true. People do it all the time when they want to make an important comment to a post that has already been responded to. In this case, the editor was making a de facto "Edited to add" point, which is perfectly valid, as it had a new signature and timestamp and was indented enough to indicate newness in relation to the replies underneath. The point is, You are not the arbiter of posts in AfDs, and need to stop moving, deleting, reverting, replacing, complaining about, mocking, or edit-warring over them. Full stop. If the behavior continues, you are likely to end up at ArbCom. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

    that was my comment on AFD. Note that per Editing_own_comments - I did NOT change or modified my original comment, to which other contributors have already responded. I just added a note to my own comment with a reference to the relevant WP guideline (that unfortunately was missing in my original comment). And what Deacon Vorbis does? Moves my note repeatedly to a place where I did not mean it to be, over my objections on his talk page. This is an example of highly confrontational behavior, and without any actual reason, except me making a comment about civility in general in this thread. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A while ago Deacon Vorbis was removing my comments on the Math Ref Desk, edit warring to keep my posting there removed, despite the fact that the Ref Desk has the status of a talk page and removal of edits there is only done in case of vandalism. This happened several time, the last such incident led to us both being blocked, even though I did not make any mistakes restoring my comments. The problem with his behavior is not the incivility per se, but his attitude when he sees something he disagree with. The incivility is merely a symptom of that, which may irritate other editors, but I have a thick skin ,so I'm not going to be bothered by that.

His aggressive attitude when his edits are opposed, causes him to not listen to the arguments of his opponents. When I told him that Ref Desk comments cannot be removed, at most they can be hatted, he did not listen. He could have looked up what the policy is if he didn't trust me. It took a few more similar disputes with him removing my comments before he finally understood that Ref Desk comments are not to be removed (unless it is outright vandalism, of course).

If you are angry, then you don't tend to listen. It's not that the person opposing him are right on the judgement about the edits, but if he doesn't listen to what the argument against his edit is, then he obviously won't be able to engage with the issue in a constructive way. Deacon Vorbis should understand that his attitude when he encounters a problem with editing is not going to help make his point in the best way. He should learn to engage with other editors in a more constructive way, and that will also be a benefit for him outside of Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There is mounting evidence here that Deacon Vorbis has repeatedly and inappropriately edited other editors' comments, including moving and removing them altogether. The issue is then compounded with edit-warring. I'd support a warning that any further modifying, moving, or removing of other editors' comments will be met with escalating blocks. This would be a TBAN, in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I support Mr rnddude's proposal of a site-wide prohibition against in any way altering other people's posts, on penalty of escalating blocks. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That would certainly be a start. A personal 1RR might help mitigate the frustration caused by pushing the 3RR to its limit every time any other editor is willing to do so in return. -- Beland (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Given no positive response from Deacon Vorbis here, he will continue doing the same. Hence this is probably a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A reminder that Count Iblis, above, has a track record regarding the posting to the ref desk Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive890#Proposal_to_Topic-Ban_User:Count_Iblis_from_Reference_Desk --Calton | Talk 14:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN

Per the above discussion, I propose that Deacon Vorbis be formally TBANed from modifying, moving, or removing other editors' comments. In addition Deacon Vorbis should be limited to 1RR.

• Support as proposer. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose 1RR restriction, and also suggest the proposer of this sanction is a much bigger source of incivility problems in their interactions than DV is. --JBL (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Assumed/real bad action by Lightburst is irrelevant here. LMSchmitt 06:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, you should probably leave it to someone else to make these proposals. That you're just sliding a 1RR in there is telling that this isn't actually addressing the above discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It was the last thing Beland proposed above. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Also support 1RR since the editor seems to maintain their aggressiveness and shows no sign of having learned or accepted anything problematical about their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all DV in the last few days has disengaged himself from that behaviour of editing other people's comments on talk pages excluding his own. I only see him removing clear vandalism from talk pages. Note there is one issue that he is having, but that is an IP editing DV's comments, but DV has not resorted to the type of language noted above. 1RR is a non starter for me as if he stops editing other people's comments then 1RR is not needed unless someone can find evidence of a current problem of edit warring in articles. In addition restrictions are meant to prevent a current problem and not be punitive; from what I can see the problem has been resolved and as per Mr rnddude's proposal a warning outlining the community's dissatisfaction of editing people's comments to DV would be a much more objective solution for the time being. Games of the world (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Crossing 3rr repeatedly is as disruptive as editing and removing other editor comments. The above discussion has outlined a continuing pattern of this type of disruptive behavior and uncivil comments. The editor is unapologetic. I agree with one of the other editors above who said a new editor would be indeffed for this pattern of behavior. But we tolerate this behavior from an editor who knows better as long as they occasionally stop the behavior or self revert after multiple disruptive 4rr. We certainly do not apply the rules equally here and I have gotten used to that. Lightburst (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Purely punitive. Whatever the alleged problem is it's cleared up on its own, and the 1RR thing seems irrelevant. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't believe it's necessary here, but I would respectfully suggest to Deacon Vorbis that he just refrain entirely from altering others' comments, and modulate his approach a bit for various editors. While I don't find his approach offensive or problematic, if some other editor does, it can't hurt to try a different tack. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. While the proposal is not unreasonable, this is not a topic ban. This is a behavior requirement, and it is very much obvious. Everyone should follow it simply by default, and almost everyone actually does. If someone needs to be reminded about it on the ANI, it means the user has a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a formal TBAN. Refactoring or otherwise editing other editor comments, with only a few exceptions, is already expressed prohibited. A final warning that future instances, with the usual exceptions of BLPVIO's, removing obvious personal attacks, etc, will not be tolerated and will be met with escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN (and 1RR). DV now knows where he stands. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment please see the continued edit warring. Edit warring on an article DV nominated for AfD. 1 2 3 4 attempt at discussion deleted by DV. here. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  7&6=thirteen made a bold edit, it was reverted, and then 7&6 reinstated the bold edit with the edit summary Take it to the article talk page. Is that how WP:ONUS and WP:BRD work? No, it's the exact opposite. Then 7&6 posted an edit warring warning on DV's user page instead of user talk page. We all love it when one party to an edit war warns the other party about edit warring. This exchange is an example of problematic behavior, just not by DV. Lev!vich 18:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the disruption to the encyclopedia ...as always. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored that I had in fact simultaneously posted at the article talk page with an edit warning, and that it was immediately removed here. I just wanted him to stop. I did not go to the edit warring notice board to complain about the 4 reverts and the blatant disregard of WP:3RR. But User:Levivich will not pass up an opportunity and I was summoned here. I was going to ignore this, but I will not have someone malign me and then have someone say I adopted it because I acquiesced and didn't object. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see the point of T-banning somebody from something that's not allowed on Wikipedia anyway (i.e. editing other people's comments), and as for a 1RR restriction, it seems less than relevant. Also, in these bleak times, I recommend we all try to have a little more patience with one another, as long as the other is acting in good faith to help Wikipedia, which I'm convinced Deacon Vorbis always does. Bishonen | tålk 16:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC).
• Support 1RR restriction because this user continue edit war [33], [34],[35] right during an active ANI discussion about him. What he is going to do when this discussion will be closed? My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• So you're demanding that DV be ban from editing talk page comments -- because of his edits to ARTICLE space? Well, that's different. --Calton | Talk 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, of course not. No ban. 1RR restriction would not prevent him from editing anything at all. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

So an even shakier rationale for a proposal that's not even on the table? MUCH better. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You probably did not read the proposal on the top of this thread. It tells "In addition Deacon Vorbis should be limited to 1RR.". This is part I would support, and for an obvious reason: see the diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• support Since the problem is still on-going even during this ANI thread, with continued edit warring and personal attacks, I think that passing a formal proposal would be a good idea. Patiodweller (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment- it seems that if someone accidentally edits the wrong page, it reflects badly on Deacon Vorbis. Earlier in this discussion we found out that if someone posts to his user page rather than his talk page, and he reverts it, that is bad and wrong. Of course, we now learn that if DV accidentally edits the wrong page, then reverts himself and says "whoops, wrong page" that's also highly felonious. But we weren't supposed to notice the self-revert and apology, were we? I suggest we close this proposal on the grounds that the primary complainants are being very economical with the truth. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. A solution in search of a problem, now. --Calton | Talk 14:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - clearly punitive. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1RR - The behaviour above isn't acceptable and you generally shouldn't edit or modify anyone else's comment anyway. As for the "punitive" arguments, I have seen it successfully argued (and enforced) that "preventative, not punitive" only applies to blocking and that no such restriction exists when it comes to other sanctions.

Granted I don't agree with this myself (it's basically a form of WP:LAWYER) and the thread where this was decided was heavily gamed by a serial troll, but there is nonetheless a precedent for that. Still, I don't see this as punitive. Darkknight2149 04:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support any reasonable sanctions. Deacon Vorbis is a interfering busybody who despite his own blatant lack of civility, can't resist gaslighting and throwing his weight around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "... interfering busybody who despite his own blatant lack of civility, can't resist ..." 🤦🏼‍♂️ Lev!vich 14:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Bishonen said it best. ~ HAL333([36]) 00:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Telsho & LTA socking

The LTA page can be found here. The relevant SPI can be found here.

See the history above. Telsho popped onto multiple editors' radars after filing an ANI report where he claimed to have "stumbled" upon the Adrian Zenz article and was observed by numerous editors to exhibit most of the characteristics of the LTA in question; the CU check found Telsho to be a  Possible sock. However, the August 22 case was later closed (along with subsequent investigations) on September 2 and then archived without any conclusion regarding Telsho. Follow-up inquiries by me and Canucklehead about a behavioral analysis did not receive an answer. I'm bringing this to the community, considering Telsho has continued to be disruptive and has provided additional evidence of quacking since the SPI closure. If this should be redirected to SPI for a second Telsho case, I'll move it there, but I'm not clear on the policy about opening up the same SPI again.

Significant behavioral evidence was provided in the SPI, which I have linked to, but here is additional LTA evidence, regarding subjects the sockfarm tends to focus on

• Singapore (no diffs for this one, since the vast majority of Telsho's edits involve Singapore)
• Culture of Singapore (while sometimes removing mention of other countries): [37][38][39][40][41], multiple edits to bubble tea, the creation of List of Singaporean inventions and discoveries, edits to Michael P. Fay
• Economy of Singapore (a sampling of numerous examples, including some shoehorning in of mentions of Singapore): [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52], Hillion Mall
• Jewel Changi Airport [53] and Singapore Changi Airport [54][55][56], Singapore airlines [57][58]
• Lee Hsien Loong (no diffs needed here, since Telsho is all over the recent history, but diffs of pushing mentions of Lee in other articles can easily be provided)
• articles about Singapore transit: [59][60][61]

Quacking

• Telsho makes his one and only edit to George Floyd protests, which just happens to be a specific point a heavily involved sock was interested in[62]
• The Editor Interaction Analyzer is pretty illuminating for sock Feinoa in its entirety, but here are some highlights:
  • Japanese Self-Defense Forces[63][64][65][66]
  • Don Quijote (store), worrying about the store counts and locations [67][68][69]
  • Lee Hsien Loong [70][71]
  • removal of Malay language at Singapore Island [72][73]
  • Continuing to update his own infobox at Mediacorp [74][75][76]
• A shared dislike of "Milk Tea Alliance" at milk tea: [77][78][79][80][81][82][83](note that warring over redirects, especially with User:Horse Eye Jack/User:Horse Eye's Back, continues with Telsho and resulted in his current block)
• Tag bombing and edit warring over them, just like Telsho [84][85][86][87][88]
• Adding a photo to an article that just happens to have been taken and uploaded by a sock [89]
• Fascination with the Bloomberg Index [90][91]
• This one I put in the SPI and consider a smoking gun, but bears repeating as a one-time visit to an obscure page just to reinstate a sock edit under the guise of reverting vandalism
• There is another connection between Telsho and an earlier sock, but per WP:BEANS I'd prefer to share it with admins privately, upon request

Frankly, you can look at most of the socks in the EIA and find significant overlap with Telsho, which becomes overwhelming once you consider how far-reaching that overlap actually is. I haven't even brought up behavioral problems outside of the sock connections, but there is incessant edit warring, refusal to use talkpages or abide by consensus, resistance to the use of sources (which he has in common with the Feinoa sock), a number of personal attacks, and a persistent use of deceptive edit summaries (some of which can be seen in the provided diffs). I'm happy to provide diffs of any of these behaviors if requested, but I'm trying to keep this report manageable for now and focused on the LTA connection. I propose Telsho's block be extended to indefinite and that he be added to the list of suspected sockpuppets of Ineedtostopforgetting. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) That username rings a bell. On 24 September, I undid changes by Telsho which had turned MBS from a DAB page into a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Marina Bay Sands. My WP:ES, here, concisely sets out my reasoning (and I got a record-for-me of 3 smileys for making that set of edits). I noticed the Singapore-centric element in Telsho's edit history, but on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious. Narky Blert (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  on a very quick scan nothing else quite as egregious This is completely understandable. When his account was first created, Telsho's focus was pretty obvious, and you can see it in his first month of editing. After the SPI, I'm assuming he realized his edits were under scrutiny, and he began patrolling recent changes, making a slew of revisions and template drops on user pages to beef up his editing history and make it harder for his editing patterns to be casually discerned. He's been pretty careless with this, since it's not really his interest, frequently improperly reverting constructive or corrective contributions (e.g., [92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101]) and then leaving vandalism or unconstructive editing warning templates on user pages. This inevitably caused one unhappy editor to follow up on his talkpage, which he blanked after accusing her of harassment (a common Telsho aspersion), leading her to bring him to ANI, where a couple of admins told him to not to call constructive edits vandalism. So he still sloppily makes unnecessary or incorrect reversions ([102][103][104][105][106]), but with more neutral templates now, barring the occasional rudeness.

  That said, I'd say some of the diffs I provided are pretty egregious, especially when you take in the edit summaries. Here are a few more on redirects [107][108][109][110], edit warring with an admin on a speedy delete [111]], and a few others that were standouts: notice the ES on this one; ES again, citing UNDUE to load up negative info in the lede; another instance of tag bombing, followed by a rewrite with the disingenuous "cleaning" edit summary as an extraordinary claim is added to the lede.

• Support - A few weeks ago, I had considered opening another SPI on Telsho based on the developing milk tea obsession, and his overlapping fixations with economic indexes and tendency for placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on Singapore, but I was on a bit of a wikibreak and ultimately decided that if he was truly indistinguishable from this LTA, he would do something that causes someone else to blow the whistle eventually. It appears that I've been proven correct. The edits leading up to his block (arguing in the edit summary without discussing anything, WP:DTR, repeated casting of aspersions) are not only textbook of this LTA, but are all disruptive regardless, not to mention the vindictiveness implied by nonsense CSD requests on reasonably established pages created by someone who's had beef with him before.

To summarize my thoughts:

• At worst, Telsho is almost certainly a sock of the linked LTA.
• At best, Telsho is a habitual POV-pusher and disruptive editor who, in his short time here, has demonstrated a lack of willingness to cooperate with people opposed to whatever his agenda is supposed to be.
• It would be nice if an admin could chime in with some insight on why an active SPI discussion could be suddenly archived without explanation, why questions about said archival would be blatantly ignored, and why a "possible" LTA sock with a bunch of problematic edits was allowed to continue editing until it got to this point. —{Canucklehead} _{FKA Cryptic Canadian} 05:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The nomination of articles created by Horse Eye Jack/Horse Eye's Back for speedy deletion needs to be taken into consideration here. I reverted Moira K. Lyons, Dogmid Sosorbaram and Angelo Tomasso Jr. as they obviously didn't meet speedy deletion criteria, and Telsho chose to edit-war over one of them. This editor is targeting a particular other editor's contributions rather than following Wikipedia policy. And this editor is unwilling to discuss edits. I haven't looked into any socking issues, but it's pretty clear that Telsho is not here to help build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• I brought up the account Honoredebalzac345 during the last series of Ineedtostopforgetting sock discussion, I would note that immediately after participating in the sock puppet investigation (August 23rd) that account ceased all activity despite being active every day from August 8-August 23rd. The overlap and mutual support with the Telsho account is overwhelming in hindsight. Regardless of whether Telsho/Honoredebalzac345 are Ineedtostopforgetting socks Telsho is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has been given way too many chances already, this should have been over more than a month ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Just so that everyone is aware Telsho resumed edit warring at Singapore–United States relations immediately after their block expired and is back at the edit warring noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The result was a warning issued by EdJohnston, hopefully they heed it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• This user is now reverting his article of the day to the slanted "consensus" version which was, in fact, created by him without consensus and which he edit warred to preserve. I don't know how this user can make it any more clear that he is WP:NOTHERE, regardless of the sock accusation. —{Canucklehead} _{FKA Cryptic Canadian} 05:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Starzoner mass page creation: 32,000+ pages created

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

The user above appears to have semi-automatically created thousands upon thousands of pages using WP:AWB in their userspace—e.g. User:Starzoner/3117, User:Starzoner/3116, User:Starzoner/3115, ... see their recent userspace contributions. According to XTools, they have created more than 32,000 pages in their userspace. I was alerted to this situation last night by DannyS712, and I provisionally revoked their AWB access pending an answer to a query about this editing, see User talk:Starzoner#Mass page creation (permalink). Their rationale was I just created some pages so that I can built off of them later. In the future, when I get to them, I can just continue where I started, instead of copy pasting content later on. As I stated on their talk page, I don't fully understand this rationale unless they intended to create a bot that could create articles, which would have certainly needed a WP:BRFA and quite possibly also an RfC before starting. I'm bringing this here because I'm not sure what should be done with the 32,000+ pages, and so I could use more eyes. Should they be deleted? If so, I could use some help deleting them. Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• It appears the user has also created at least 850 articles in mainspace, most of which are one-line stubs that they indeed used WP:AWB to create, e.g. Schefflera simplex. So it seems this issue is not restricted to userspace. Mz7 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  They were also massively moving categories out of process recently (manually, not via Cfd) but they stopped after they got a warning (which is still at their talk page).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've come across similar plant stubs in NPP over time and I ask to please not try and move more plant stubs into mainspace when they are a single unreferenced sentence. Numbered stubs are an absolute waste of time. We aren't going to run out of article any time soon, so you don't have to grab them all up. (And if we do, now I know where to find some free ones.) Natureium (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Since he seemed to respond well to the warning, hopefully a firm "request" to not make new pages of any kind until his total number of "incomplete" drafts is under some reasonable number, like 20, AND that he be given an opportunity to ask for a mass-deletion of these drafts. As for the stubs he created, I'll be happy to skim a representative sample for notability. If the fast majority are notable, just leave them alone, if too many are non-notable and have no other page history, mass-deletion under WP:TNT may be the answer. If it turns out he's not willing to play by the rules after being told what they are, well, that's what AN/I is for. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Most of their new articles are about taxons which are all notable. I do not see any issue here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, I should clarify that they were apologetic in response to my query, and they said they were okay with me deleting the userspace pages if I wanted to. I don't think I'm necessarily looking for any sanctions here, but rather some more eyes to see just what should be done with all these pages. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment continued: He has "page mover" user-rights, which is useful when moving drafts of notable topics, such as the taxons that Ymblanter just mentioned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It is my impression that Starzoner has previously experimented with an "assembly line" approach to taxon articles, which resulted in plenty of problems and about ten screens worth of comments by me and other NPPs. After some teething troubles, the current stubs are generally fine (although still in need of the odd touch-up) but that seems to be contingent on them not being stamped out from templates - whenever they fall back on that, we get inapplicable refs, deactivated cats, and replicated grammar issues. I'd really hope the take-away from that would be not to mass-produce stubs, and certainly not on that gorgeous scale. Hint, hint. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment): I concur with Elmidae's comment. An example is one of the articles moved into mainspace today: Vernonia goetzenii. The species is notable and the Infobox is valid. But the botanical author should always be referenced, in this case the provided reference is fine. Also the botanical author should really be linked if applicable, in this case to Karl August Otto Hoffmann. That it's a perennial plant is not in the provided reference. For a single article these points might be nit-picking. But when we're talking about hundreds of stubs being mass-created, these small things add up. In fairness, I don't think there's a whole lot more than can be said about Vernonia goetzenii, it's a little-documented species. But I'm not sure the same can be said for all the other stubs. And from Schefflera abyssinica (originally created in February) to today, these stubs don't really seem to have evolved much beyond the "is a plant" level of detail. Declangi (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On closer inspection of the IPNI entry and the supposed protologue, Vernonia goetzenii is a nomen nudum, despite appearing as "accepted" in POWO and the Global Composite Database. As such, it can (and should) be deleted for lack of notability. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the critical monograph (Kalanda & Lisowski 1995) which might explain whether the name has ever been validated or why it remains undescribed. Choess (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good catch and outweighs my "nit-picks" above. And serves as a good reminder of the value of double-checking otherwise seemingly accepted names. Declangi (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Declangi: Actually, it's not and I stand corrected. On closer inspection, a description was added in Götzen's "Durch Afrika von Ost nach West" (p. 382). IPNI seems to have split an entry in Index Kewensis that held a reference both to the nomen nudum and to its subsequent validation. Will try to add a bit of description when I get a chance. Choess (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I disagree about a total ban on mass-producing stubs. However, "you are responsible for every edit you make" should be the rule of thumb. As a general rule I would say when it comes to semi-automated edits with tools that aren't proven to be reliable nearly 100% of the time, the editor should review the edit before saving it. The same of course applies to "assembly line edits" even if done manually. In other words, I don't see any problem running a script or "manual assembly line process" that rapidly creates taxons or whatever kind of stub from a list of clearly-notable topics, where having a bunch of stubs is clearly better than having a bunch of missing pages, as long as I preview each and every one before hitting "save" and take full responsibility for each and every save. If my script is well-written and my input data is good, I should be able to crank out 100-200 stubs an hour this way without harming the encyclopedia. If it's 90% good then I'll have to stop every 10th stub and do fixups, which might slow me down significantly but it will still be faster than doing it all by hand. The problem comes when you don't preview your edits well, or at all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they aren't stopping to fix those problems. On 11 August I left a note on their talk page about problems with articles they created in February. They didn't respond, and deleted it with several others (including an earlier message I'd left them about a different problem) rather than waiting for them to be archived. The problems with the articles remain. Perhaps they're waiting for someone else to fix them? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see no administrative issue to address here. Having helped out with some of these userspace drafts, I think those objecting are failing to see the forest for the trees. We have an established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles. Frankly, given the number of identified species, we are absolutely going to need some kind of mass-editing system if we ever hope to actually have these. I see absolutely nothing wrong with an editor creating this number of userspace drafts with the intent of eventually getting them in shape to become articles. I have myself done something very similar in the past, having used AWB to create around 2,000 draftspace stubs on state supreme court justices (of which more than 800 have since successfully been turned into articles, several ending up on DYK). BD2412 T 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think I am directly opposed to the idea of mass-producing stubs for a category of topics that are clearly notable, but if we are going to undertake any kind of automated editing at this scale, I would expect editors to seek a consensus for the idea prior to carrying it out and to have the process for that automation approved at WP:BRFA. This is especially because a single mistake in this kind of process would have the potential to reciprocate across hundreds or even thousands of articles. Have there been any discussions on the idea of using an automated process to create these articles? Mz7 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  I would find it a bit WP:CREEPy to require a BRFA for an editor to use AWB (as opposed to an actual bot) to work up stubs in their own userspace. I would have found such a requirement absurd and counterproductive with my own efforts along those lines. The only question I would have is whether the article is in the correct shape at the time it is moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment)(and new to ANI) They're not in correct shape, despite multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision. What's the next step after a user is unresponsive to these requests? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  The initial complaint raised here was with respect to the thousands of pages the user has created in their userspace. So long as those remain in userspace, it doesn't matter what shape they are in. BD2412 T 22:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  Does a new issue need to be opened to address our related concerns or can that be rolled in here? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 22:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

  We can address it here, but the mainspace content issue is a much smaller set of pages. BD2412 T 00:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  "multiple editors continually pointing to numerous ways the stubs need revision." What is preventing these users from performing some of these revisions themselves? Starzoner does not own the new articles. Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  We are...but since their edits are semi-automated, it takes a lot of one-by-one effort after the fact to fix them each. Better to do it right from the outset, which is why there is are bot review processes, right? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Where is the established standard that all named species are notable, and can (and should) have articles? Lev!vich 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. You'll find strong consensus at WP:TOL that all species merit standalone articles. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Hyperik! I think that line in SPECIESOUTCOMES contradicts the global consensus at WP:N that nothing is inherently notable. I see that there is consensus at TOL (apparently since 2012, when SPECIESOUTCOMES was added), but the consensus of a wikiproject is local consensus and cannot override WP:N. Just a heads up, I'm going to boldly edit SPECIESOUTCOMES to match WP:N; I expect I might be reverted, at which point I'll probably start an RFC. Lev!vich 15:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't this why we have Wikispecies? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It is, but that is a far less trafficked project than this one. We have previously established that all confirmed species are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, which may be a separate discussion to undertake. BD2412 T 22:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe now is a good time to eliminate that issue by not accepting stubs that are nothing more than a horizontal taxobox. Send them to Wikispecies, which is the proper venue. WSp cannot hope to expand without material. Build it and they will come? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
      • That is a whole other ball of wax. I think it's hard - you can only create Wikipedia once. I would just as soon fold Wikispecies in here. BD2412 T 00:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No Wikispecies is a database for taxonomy and nomenclature, nothing more. It doesn't have information on the distribution of the species or about its biology. Even the stub example chosen above as a "bad" example goes beyond the scope of a Wikispecies article on the taxon name, if there was one. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

oh what should I do then? but first, what are the back door discussions where someone is telling another user to keep an eye out? Maybe I should just forget contributing to Wikipedia here and move to Wikispecies since clearly some people have issues with my contributions here. :( Starzoner (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Notable or not, we don't need a stand-alone page about every species. In fact, that's a pretty poor way to organize the information. Multiple species can be covered on a single page about the genus or subgenus, for example. If all we have to say on a topic is one sentence (or as Atsme says, a horizontal tax box), then there's really no reason to put it on its own page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which should have articles; it's not a database of species containing data on species (that's WikiSpecies). BTW, mass-creating pages with a script is always a bad idea, whether it's articles or portals or redirects, it just adds to the maintenance work without really adding to the encyclopedia. Even if someone reads the stub, they get almost no value from it, because it contains almost no information. It's better to create lists (e.g. lists of species in a genus) than to mass-create one-line stubs (and I wish we could come to consensus on that because there are a number of editors who mass-create stubs by the thousands). Lev!vich 15:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This right here. We have decided in the past that WP has functions of a gazetteer so that's why we have articles, if just stubs, of every gov't recognized town and village, but I have yet to see anything that says we are doing the function of WikiSpecies here. No notability guideline gives this advice, it's not WP:OUTCOMES, etc. I agree that that higher levels of the taxological classification system will have each item notable but not at the species level, not when that numbers in the millions. --Masem (t) 15:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Species form individual entries in works such as floras and zoological monographs, which are generally structured to provide a description of the characteristics of each species and usually some information on how to distinguish it from other species within scope. I would consider such works, like many other things, a type of specialist encyclopedia; the fact that the first pillar enumerates gazetteers does not alter our charge to subsume many specialist encyclopedias, of necessity unenumerated. Choess (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, this is exactly what WP:NOPAGE is supposed to cover. I don't think WP:OUTCOMES needs tweaking: essentially all of the stubs created in this way, by various people, would meet the GNG with a little bit of digging, and trying to refine the current wording would, I think, create as much trouble as it would solve. But these stubs as written add nothing to the encyclopedia. The rationale for doing so seems to be that replacing redlinks with stub will catalyze the creation of useful articles, but people have experimented with this for years (not just in en.WP; Lsjbot? has mass-created taxon stubs on some of the other Wikipedias) and I haven't seen compelling evidence that the existence of stubs actually accelerates the creation of articles on taxa. Furthermore, the taxonomic databases have a low, but detectable rate of errors (I carry on a more or less regular correspondence to fix them), and these mass-creation strategies propagate and perpetuate those errors. If they added value to the encyclopedia, that might be tenable, but a stub that just re-iterates the taxonomic position of a taxon adds nothing. Putting that in prose adds nothing whatsoever to what one would get from referring to the external database. It's the empty calories of content creation: makes one look very productive and generates big numbers in articles created but doesn't really add *meaning*. We've historically been reluctant to formally raise the bar on minimum viable new articles, for fear of disturbing our incremental content-creation process (although maybe AfC has sapped this), but I'd heartily encourage Starzoner and other users thinking about projects like this to read WP:NOPAGE and carefully consider whether this really helps the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Starzoner: After reading through this discussion, I think the solution for now is simply to slow down. Instead of trying to create thousands of articles at once, shoot for a much smaller number (davidwr suggested 20 above). Try to be more careful when publishing articles—it seems a number of editors have identified certain issues with the articles that you are publishing, which is concerning when you seem to be publishing so many. After reading the discussion above, I don't think there is a compelling administrative need to go through and delete all 30,000+ pages in your userspace, as long as you're carefully the drafts you are publishing to mainspace for quality. I apologize for making you feel that you're contributions are not welcome here. I do appreciate your dedication to the project; I was merely concerned by the rate at which you were doing it and whether that might lead to errors that will affect our readers. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

ok. Starzoner (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by User:DePiep

Previous discussion

First and foremost, I should explain why there is a topic on the issue on which has already been raised and discussed once. That is because my understanding is that the complaint was deemed incomplete the first time due to the lack of diff URLs, and there has not been a verdict per se; rather, the issue was not decisively considered. I have participated in the previous discussion, and since most of my commentary, which I believe added a lot to the case, was not properly considered (I somewhat understand that: it was more important to establish the claim by the original claimant first, and I understand the case as it was presented did not look particularly strong), I decided I'd change the original statement to some degree and expand upon it with what I have.

Here's what happened in the last few days.

Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

Sandbh replaced the lead picture in periodic table with one of his own design and noted the change at WT:ELEM. A discussion ensued. At one point, Sandbh expressed frustration that stemmed from what he formulates as DePiep's unwillingness to give an idea a try without prior discussion and DePiep responded by confirming that but in different words. At the same time, I noted that one color in our periodic table color scheme was disliked by editors (including myself). I figured that softening the color a bit would be fine with everyone, and so I did that, and I announced my action. The first reaction I got was a "like," but from there, I got three consecutive messages from User:DePiep, that announced it "would be nicer if you had published it" (in the sense explained above), in the second, a problem was identified, and in the third one, I was told to grow up and behave. I did not make any edits between those messages, and this breach of civility came out of blue. That was what Sandbh referred to as the last straw that brought him here in the first place.

Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020

At the same time, I am having a discussion with DePiep, at times peaceful and at times not, at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020. While anyone can read the discussion in its entirety themselves as it's not too long yet, I want to make note of a couple of particular actions taken by DePiep. One is reverting my revert I had well explained at the talk page. In short, the blurb initially had an image, then DePiep replaced it with one of their own design, then I undid that edit and quickly provided a rationale for my edit. Shortly before DePiep made the second revert, they replied to my reverting, "improvements [to their image can be made"] (whereas mine was "unacceptable" due to the wrong kind of brackets). For some context, Sandbh, believing he had a consensus backing him, asked DePiep for a similar approach on Friday, only to be undone by them in eight hours. Also shortly before reverting a revert, DePiep made this edit; I remark the uncivility here. (In this edit, DePiep uses a TFA talk page to set up a section that is titled by my username and that does nothing other than reprimand me and my "habits," claiming that I habitually "simply deny arguments" and "never aim to improve." -- added at 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

Uncivil behavior on this page

When Sandbh started his ANI, I pinched in, too. In the brief discussion that followed, DePiep made a demonstrably false claim that I had not tried to discuss the matter with them. When I pointed out I in fact had engaged in a discussion, it was claimed that I didn't answer quickly enough (twelve hours after the original post, most of which were nighttime in my timezone) and that "grow up and behave" was a "colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits." When I hinted that apologizing for the incorrect claim that I refused to discuss was still an option (I thought the hint would be taken: after all, that would be the civil thing, and the title of the discussion was, "‎Incivil behaviour by User:DePiep," so it was high time to act civilly), I was told that I was "turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add." No evidence whatsoever was presented to support such an outstanding claim against another editor (myself). I again remark the uncivility of this kind of discussion. (In truth, DePiep did bring up one Sandbh quote, but that was after I explicitly noted I was not responsible for Sandbh's words.) The discussion, as the title said, was actually about DePiep, but DePiep chose not to bring themselves up in that last quote.

Previous uncivil behavior

Unfortunately, I know that DePiep wasn't just having a bad day, this perfectly falls in line with their previous actions. In the end of the last year and the beginning of this one, ComplexRational and I were working on Talk:History of the periodic table (back then mostly, if not predominantly, CR). CR had improved the article significantly by April. In April, DePiep chipped into another discussion of ours and characterized the article after the effort put into its improvement in this manner: "the article today is chaotic, deviating, lack structure and is not an improvement since many months ago at all. Its development status does not deserve article." This was, of course, far from truth, but worse than that, it was complete disregard for somebody else's work. In the same edit, they suggested they were the one to command others what should be done and in what order, even though they were not helping us improve the article text and nobody asked their opinion in the first place: "For this, any such detailed proposals at this one is to be put on hold." In a civil manner a few posts later, I asked them to retract that post. This was not done.

A year and a half ago, there was an incident at Talk:Charles Martin Hall#Merger proposal. The core of that argument was that DePiep interpreted rules in a very particular manner. Even though nobody agreed with their interpretation and five people (including myself) opposed it, they still continued to act as if they were right. These actions included reverting a revert, oblivion to others' arguments (calling the version of the name of element 13 commonly used in the United States ("aluminum") outdated, even though other editors had pointed out that this was not the case), accusing others of misinterpretation of a guideline when the person had only, in fact, quoted it (the editor in question was surprised by this accusation as well as the accusation that they were not "performing this discussion sincerely", see the same edit), and making an "utterly false claim" about another editor's actions. Save for the first one, I was not the editor involved in these episodes.

Final remarks

Time does not help. We have run into this sort of problem with DePiep before where they don't listen to others' arguments and/or act uncivilly, as I have presented above. We've been here, this sort of problem should not have emerged again. Yet it has. I am genuinely sorry to write a complaint against DePiep, there is no good outcome in this situation as I see it, because they have been helpful with our graphical design, and losing such a member is a bad outcome. However, I believe that continuation of this behavior is worse.

In the previous outcome, it was noted that "a. he [Sandbh] does not get to control who responds to an ANI thread, b. he is supposed to provide diffs, when he accuses another editor of disruption, c. when reporting another user, a WP:BOOMERANG is always a possibility." I do not intend to claim control over this thread, anyone willing to say a word in a civil fashion and listen to other editors' arguments is welcome as far as I am concerned. I believe the number of diffs should be sufficient for my case. I stated in the previous discussion that I was eager to be held accountable for my actions and I stand by that, though I would like the editors to note that my behavior that is not directly related to the described events is not the topic of this discussion, and a detailed discussion of it is best held outside of this section if there is enough desire to discuss it.--R8R (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC), amended at 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair it was not just about difs. There was nothing there to admonish anyone when referring to two BRD edits. Games of the world (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Come to think of it, yes, that may be the case. I was not watching that particular discussion very closely in its entirety; I was rather surprised to get involved in the first place, and my main discussion with DePiep was occurring on a different page. I only started to learn more about it as I was starting this section and while I was re-reading the post, I forgot to pay attention to the first paragraph, or else I would've altered it. My own message merely touches that discussion.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Before I reply, this procedural question for more serious admins: Salvio giuliano closed the previous, same topic discussion earlier today [112]: No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented. So I ask advice: is this a correct reopening, and am I supposed/advised even to respond as if this is the first complaint? If not, may I expect a quick, zero-effect closure? -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I propose to close this reopened thread per procedural/snowball. No materially new info or points have been put forward since the previous closure, and even the accusation (title) is identical. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what DePiep said in the last two statements is partly misleading and partly incorrect. Contrary to what DePiep said, new information has been presented: first, it is one specific colorful edit from Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020 (the last sentence in the fourth paragraph), and even more importantly, it was the claim (middle to end of the fifth paragraph) to which I referred to as "outstanding" in which a very serious accusation was made against myself but no evidence to support it was presented. That last claim occurred on this very page, during the last discussion, and it was not pointed out the last time, but it would not be appropriate to let such an accusation slip.

As for the misleading part, those claims I did bring up the last time were not considered during the last discussion at all (again, I understand how this could have happened since I was not the nominator and the nomination was not complete), barring one specific claim that I did not repeat in this section; if one does not read carefully enough, they may think that the claims were opposed, which they were not. I have referred to this in the opening paragraph of this section. If they had been discussed and found insufficient for any charge, DePiep's plea not to reopen the closed discussion would be understandable. However, they had not, and it is only appropriate that the behavior DePiep displayed is held up to scrutiny.--R8R (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• R8R, this 1400-word wall of text is overwhelming. Assuming it demonstrates a pattern of obstructionism and/or incivility by DePiep, what do you propose as the solution? By the way, Euryalus placed DePiep under several editing restrictions four months ago in May 2018 [113]; namely [114]:

1. DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
2. DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions.
3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
4. DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

--Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC); revised 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Softlavender: Assuming it demonstrates ... -- are you serious? Please tell me, SL, which accusations you did not find am I supposed to clean up here? Is that all you can find, plus the feeding but not finding a Boomerang? R8R reopens a closed thread, under the same accusation, cannot demostrate points of trouble (that were refuted before), and we are supposed to start talking about the sanctions? -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, you are not helping yourself here. R8R has opened a new and different, good-faith thread, complete with diffs and many more examples from many more discussions, of apparently problematic behavior from and interactions with you. If your only response is to attack me and the OP, this will doubtless not turn out well for you. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am responding, and first of all I did question openly the newness of this thread. Only now you have established that, thank you. -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, as noted in the links, DePiep's sanctions were placed by the Wikipedia Community after that ANI discussion not by any admin. Euryalus was simply the admin who closed that discussion, assessing the community consensus and logging it etc. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I may be wordy at times, unfortunately that much is true. I have divided the text into parts by subheaders; I hope that makes reading easier.

The solution I've had in mind is a ban from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time. Unfortunately, I don't know what duration of such a ban would be sufficient; there was a serious accident a year and a half ago (that I have brought up above), and in the last ten days or so, there were three accidents. I am somewhat hesitant to ask for an indefinite ban myself though I think that is a valid solution.--R8R (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Support: A ban from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time. I declare a conflict of interest in light my previous closed grievance regarding alleged incivil behaviour by DePeip. Sandbh (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I think you mean incident not accident. Anyway it's probably not worth going into details about the older stuff. The editing sanctions, even if it postdated them, and the long blocks are enough to established there's a historic problem with the editor's editing. Concentrate instead on demonstrating the most recent edits are enough or a problem to justify some sanction. Since the thread has several responses, I'm not sure if you should delete parts of your original comment but you could use {{cot}} and {{cob}} to collapse the part about historic stuff. Edit: I see that the previous incidents includes both stuff from 2019 and April 2020. April 2020 was after any block so I guess some may consider it relevant. However while I have not looked carefully at your diffs, your description of them doesn't make me think there's anything there that will raise the communities concern. An editor expressing an opinion an article is crap is for better or worse, acceptable behaviour provided there isn't some other underlying problem. (E.g. an editor pursing another to always say their work is crap.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Since you say that the block record is enough to make my point, I'll let go of the past events. In any event, I believe that what happened in the last ten days stands out on its own account: I was, entirely out of blue, told to "grow up and behave"; a section at a TFA talk page was added with the sole purpose to disparage me; I was publicly accused of turning legitimate edits made in good faith into personal attacks, and not a single piece of evidence was presented to substantiate such a claim.--R8R (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: when you open a thread, you should always expect your related behaviour to come under discussion in that thread. It's not the norm to discuss it in a separate thread since it's more confusing when were are discussing related things in different threads. As was noted before, a WP:Boomerang i.e. where the only action is against the thread starter is a perfectly common outcome of noticeboards complaints. If you don't welcome this, your only real solution is not to complain about other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Yes, I see what you mean. When I wrote what I did, I had in mind the unvoiced accusation; I believed that had such an accusation existed and been related to this discussion, it would've been presented, but it was not, and thus whatever there was, if anything, was not related to the present case. Of course I agree that what behavior I displayed in those cases I mentioned should be used to hold me responsible if other editors believe that it warrants such responsibility. I have amended my original post. I believe that now, it reflects well what you have said; if not, please let me know.--R8R (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, haven't read this thread in detail but got the ping re sanctions I placed:- noting as a mild addition that these seem to date to 2018 rather than earlier this year. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Euryalus, I have corrected that now. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(considering a reply) -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Polite comments by Sandbh: Ordinarily, I'd be satisfied if DePiep would observe Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". That said, in my experience, DePiep shows a pattern of incivil behaviour. I have looked the other way for many years, since DePiep brings other gifts to WP:ELEM. Given recent actions by DePiep, I chose/choose not to tolerate his behaviour any more.

I'm not sure how to interpret the status of WP:BOOMERANG, which says, "This is a humorous essay." I don't see the relevance of humour in this forum and not when it concerns allegations of incivil behaviour. For what WP:BOOMERANG is worth, it does say:

Responders: Investigate fully: When you encounter a reporter who wasn't blameless in the incident, or who posts a report in the heat of the moment, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the reporter is the sole problem without looking at the context. Don't ignore Bob's bad behavior while rushing to be the first to tell to Alice that her angry response to Bob's provocation is going to boomerang on her.

Upholding that recommendation would be appropriate, in my view. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

What was the purpose of this edit. Not very civil Sandbh and is on a par with what you are repeatedly accusing DePiep of - making demands that you see as unreasonable and not necessarily put in a friendly way. If you want him sanctioned (which I'm struggling at times to see anything sanctionable), don't be surprised if you get sanctioned as well for the same type of behaviour (that's the point of boomerang). The point is Sandbh, you would have a stronger case if you don't do the same behaviour that you are accusing him of. In that light, I ask you, what makes you think that your edit that I've linked above is more acceptable than some of the other stuff that has been linked to showing "inappropriate" behaviour? You don't need to answer per se, just to reflect on it. Games of the world (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Boomerang may be an essay, but it still documents how things often work at the noticeboards. Someone posts about some allegedly bad editor. When people investigate, they find the reporter is actually the primary problem. The reportee is left be, the reporter ends up with some sanction, probably blocked. Editors don't need to be perfect to make a report, but their behaviour should not be worse than the editor they are reporting. I'm not saying this is the case here, but all editors should always remember just because another editor's behaviour is problematic doesn't mean it's okay for them to respond in kind or be even worse. (This applies both ways.) Putting that aside, especially with long reports it's imperative that you ensure you focus on examples that are a clear problem. As I mentioned above, I don't think there's any question DePiep's editing has historically had major problems. But when people have looked at any of the complaints in either of these threads about recent behaviour, they haven't seen anything that warranted sanction. The more people see this, the less likely they are to investigate further since it doesn't seem worth it. The editor complaining views on what sort of behaviour warrants sanction seems to be far from the communities. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: for the better or worse, it seems the rules on this are not set in stone, and I therefore could not check if the rules state that or not. It appears this is left to judgment of those editors who take part (please correct me if I missed something), so I'd like to ask you a question to make sure I understand the thinking here.

If I, entirely hypothetically, started a section titled "User:Nil Einne" (or any other user of your preference) on this very page and wrote that what you're saying here matches the standard you've set previously, namely, that you simply deny what arguments you are presented and you never aim to collaborate, would that kind of behavior not warrant sanction against me? To me, it appears that this sort of behavior should be punished. And let's say you responded in a civil manner, reminding me that I could apologize, and I wrote for everyone to see that you were just attacking me personally without bothering to back up my words? Would that not be it, would I not deserve a ban after that? And let's say I also had a record of having been blocked before, so it is unlikely just words will make me stop doing this for a substantial period of time. Would all of that not be reason enough to impose a block on me? Should I as an editor who has just done that be allowed to walk away freely? As you can see, what I'm suggesting in this entirely hypothetical situation precisely matches what DePiep has done lately, or if not, I genuinely don't see the difference.

Please don't take what I wrote personally, but I genuinely don't understand why you're saying such behavior does not warrant sanction, and I hope you could either rethink that or explain it to me.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Games of the world: Thank you. The purpose of that edit, within the WP:ELEM project, was to respond to DePiep’s comment that he did not understand. I feel I spoke plainly to him, honestly setting out how I felt about his behaviour e.g. double reverting fellow project member R8R. I asked DePiep, as a fellow project member, to please consider Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" aka Don't be a jerk against boldness. The word “jerk” is not mine; it is set out in the article in question. I used bolding to emphasise my request. DePiep will know that I very rarely use bold text for this purpose. Sandbh (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you. I remain perplexed as to how a self-described “humorous” essay could be taken seriously. What place does humour have in the context of incivil behaviour allegations? As to my closed complaint and R8R’s follow on, mine arose in the context of what I regarded (alleged) as repeated uncooperative and disruptive behaviour by DePiep, within our WP:ELEM project, ignoring preceding contextual discussions, and requests to desist (so to speak). R8R has set out essentially the same concerns and recent experiences. I did not take my action lightly nor, based on my interactions with R8R over nine years, did he. Sandbh (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

While it may be only an essay, it does reflect norms here, i.e. that the behaviour of everybody, including the reporter is up for scrutiny when someone raises an issue here, and that poor behaviour by the reporter may rebound on them.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Brief note: the essay was tagged as humorous in the most recent edit to the page. I don't know why, as Soumya is not an author or contributor to the essay, their only edit to the page is adding the tag, and there's no note on talk explaining the tagging. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: Re, "it does reflect norms here". Are there any protocols setting out how grievances re incivil behaviour are handled here at WP:ANI, including "the norms"? I could not find anything like that. For example, there is no reference to WP:BOOMERANG. In contrast, for example, the protocol for considering featured article nominations is quite well set out at WP:FAR. Sandbh (talk)

• R8R, my feeling is that your definition of actionable incivility may be a bit looser than that of the community. Some of the edits you present are uncivil (for instance, the "grow up and behave" one and this one); some others, such as this one are not. I have to say that I am unfamiliar with WP:ELEMENT, so I don't really know if you are used to a particularly strict interpretation of WP:CIVIL there, but, from an outside perspective, there is nothing actionable in your report, if the remedy you're seeking is a topic ban. In the light of DePiep's civility restriction, the diffs I identified as uncivil above might have led to a short block, but that's pretty much it, in my opinion. Salvio 08:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano: Within WP:ELEM we seek to work collegiately on joint matters of interest.

The incivil behaviour of concern to myself and R8R (who can speak for himself) occurred following good discussions or a well-known view within the project.

We do not always reach unanimity within our project but we do recognise a majority opinion. We do not always engage in establishing formal consensus unless it is evident we need to do so.

I allege DePiep does not recognise the concept of majority opinion and reverts on this basis saying "no consensus obtained", never mind no-one else in the project felt the need to formally obtain consensus, or raised any objections to the proposal.

WP:OWN by DePiep comes into this a lot. If DePeip did something or feels that he "owns" e.g. a template then he will revert any change he disagrees with never mind previous discussion within the project given the context for the edit, including majority opinion.

To put it concisely I allege that DePiep tends to behave like a jerk, per Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" aka Don't be a jerk against boldness.

I feel that plays a big part in previous sanctions applied to DePeip, including this one, "DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions." Is that one still in effect? Sandbh (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Supplementary comment: I have added a section break below indicating that…

Reply by DePiep to OP

…DePiep's reply starts shortly hereafter. Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Sigh. While preparing my reply, handling frustration and angryness too, I met this edit: a personal attack saying I am lying. Please allow me more reply-time. -DePiep (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  This is a very serious charge. I replied to it conclusively at the page where it was first made.--R8R (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

---

• Reply to OP

First the details

See also the first, similar complaint (archived).

1. re #Previous discussion. So R8R re-starts an ANI complaint 9 hrs after the first ANI thread was closed. For doing so, R8R admits "the issue ... has been raised and discussed". They also claim it ended with "not ... a verdict per se" — while the closing note says: "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented." (closer Salvio giuliano, [115]).

Here [116] Softlavender says they have read threads at WT:ELEM (found by their own research as diffs were missing). Softlavender did not find evidence and even made multiple counterclaims (=diffs, behaviour issues by Sandbh). This is to show that the complaint raised was scrutinised.

Here [117] GirthSummit notes re the OP (complaint): "I am not seeing any stand-out diffs demonstrating clearcut incivility of the kind that is uncontroversial for us".

Apart from the OP complaint by Sandbh, R8R added a similar complaint: [118]. It containts seventeen diffs. I enganged in this subthread. Also, [119] GirthSummit addresses your post ("R8R presents a diff of what they describe as "obscene language", but when I click on it all I see is the abbreviation 'WTF'"). They also asked "are you able to provide diffs of any clear personal attacks that have been made?").

IOW, you presented your complaint(s), you added diffs, it was discussed, and at least one admin has judged your post. This too supports the closing conclusion: "No evidence ... has been presented". Your statement re your own post being "not properly considered" is not in place [120]. On top of this, given the quoted request to point out more clear-cut PA issues in diffs, this new complaint does not highlight problematic diffs.

I disagree with the statement that the original complaint handling was not complete and not decisive. There is no reason to reopen the case.

2. re #Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements: repetition from first complaint. Already addressed by me back then [121], second-last paragraph.

For example, my "grow up and behave" post was already clarified as being ... a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits [122]. Still the same diff is repeated in this "new" complaint as if nothing happened.

3. re #Uncivil behavior at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020:

R8R: "then DePiep replaced it with one of their own design" false. The image I used expressly uses the standard formatting we use throughout the topic of WP:ELEMENTS. An illustration that R8R not hear this all along? See es, es. File history shows some stubbornness image hist, before finally solving it as was proposed (create new file).

All in all, I did not find any offensive edit in the talkpage. Even worse: here is R8R turning a content-talk into personal animosity:

[123] R8R: "Who do you think wrote the lead section as it currently stands? (It was me.)";

[124] R8R: "Could it be because we are supposed to discuss your picture";

4. re #Uncivil behavior on this page: In the diff from a regular talkpage provided, R8R is putting words in my mouth as an argument. Is a content discussion I don't see what it has to do with ANI. This is a talkpage discussion, I see no need to bring this up here (very confusing mixing up a talkpage and an ANI thread; easy to miss things).

However, here [125] R8R writes "I kindly ask you not bring up the argument that you know to be incorrect", accusing me of willfully lying which is a personal attack; and in their reply they did not withdraw but instead introduced ANI-quotes for explaining (i.e., doubling down on the personal approach) [126].

5. re #Previous uncivil behaviour:

5a: Once again R8R here turns a content address [127] into a personal thing [128]. While, my reply back then [129] went back to content discussion, obviously not recognised by R8R.

5b: re Charles Martin Hall#Merger proposal: here, R8R turning a MOS discussion into a personal issue. Note that the thread had concluded and closed; I don't see how this is an admissable argument here.

6. re #Final remarks: "they don't listen to other's arguments": I read this: ... even when I throw in ownership and authority [130], notgettingit [131]; and generally turn every counteridea into a personal issue [132]. None of the accusations fits the "uncivil" claim. None have been judged as such.

Concluding (TL_DR, patterns)

A. No reason to reopen. The OP has not provided actual faults in the earlier ANI discussion and its conclusion. They incorrectly state that there was "not a verdict". The "lack of diffs" back then was overcome by editors (i.e., instead links were checked and evaluated), and R8R's complaint there did have 17 diffs which were evaluated.

B. No smoking diff. This OP cointains 30 diffs. I, and other editors here, have not seen any sanctionable diff (see Nil Einne [133]). Sure if we missed something, other editors are invited to point these out even this late.

C. Other issues, non-ANI. Diffs provided and their background/thread show a different pattern: a talkpage discussion easily turns from content into personal animosity, by multiple editors.

To be clear: this is not to throw a boomerang at R8R, I do not ask for admonishment. I think none of these talkpage altercations are worth an ANI intervention. I do note them to paint the talkpage atmosphere in which these posts were done; IMO they all are within talkpage discussion referring basically to content improvement (Of course, usually the quality of the talk may not be improved, but that's still not for ANI). One exception: I find this crossing a line.

D. Overall. These two ANI complaints by Sandbh and R8R are pointing to a chilling atmosphere in the once great and productive WP:ELEMENTS project with loyal and cooperative editors (my opponents included). Already many discussions have been abandoned, and stuck in the sandy road, because of these hopeless recent changes in talk-habits (since beginning of 2020?) [134] [135]. Whether I am part of the cause or not: this can not be cured through ANI.

-DePiep (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sandbh: I suggest some of these comments show DePiep uses his own standards to judge his own actions and those of others, rather than the ordinary conventions of WP:CIVIL. For example, his incivil admonishment to R8R to "grow up and behave" is judged by DePiep, via quoting himself, [136] as "a colloquial address, between known editors, to follow good talkpage habits". Just what are these good talkpage habits?

To further justify his actions, DePiep refers to a standard format we use throughout WP:ELEM as way of criticising R8R's actions. We use a standard format for convenience not as a straitjacket. Changing the standard is notoriously difficult since DePiep considers he WP:OWN's it. For example, nobody within the project likes the red shade we use to colour the alkali metals. R8R changes it [137] for that reason. Another editor adds a like. [138] What happens next? DePiep reverts it along with the comment: "Please, grow up and behave".[139] WP:OWN once again.

As for WP:ELEM becoming chilling, with initiatives abandoned and stuck, no such thing has happened. WP:ELEM is notorious for its lengthy discussions of the topic du jour. After a long, animated and heated discussion on the composition of group 3, the editors involved (me included) reached an accommodation. One of these editors decided to leave the project temporarily pending a decision by IUPAC. I have since been fruitfully discussing a range of WP:ELEM matters with that editor (who continues to contribute to our project). I recently updated the periodic table graphic in the lede of our periodic table article [after twice being reverted by DePeip [140][141]] based on suggestions by that editor. I made further contributions to the periodic table article, [142] with several supporting citations, as a result of discussion within WP:ELEM.

In this context, for another example of DiPiep's disruptive behaviour on one WP:ELEM's projects, there is this R8R quote:

""In the end of the last year and the beginning of this one, ComplexRational and I were working on Talk:History of the periodic table (back then mostly, if not predominantly, CR). CR had improved the article significantly by April. In April, DePiep chipped into another discussion of ours and characterized the article after the effort put into its improvement in this manner: "the article today is chaotic, deviating, lack structure and is not an improvement since many months ago at all. Its development status does not deserve article." This was, of course, far from truth, but worse than that, it was complete disregard for somebody else's work. In the same edit, they suggested they were the one to command others what should be done and in what order, even though they were not helping us improve the article text and nobody asked their opinion in the first place: "For this, any such detailed proposals at this one is to be put on hold." In a civil manner a few posts later, I asked them to retract that post. This was not done."

For a good example of a stuck, abandoned issue, in March 2016 DePeip posts a review of the colours we use on our periodic table.[143] R8R comes with a colour scheme [144] attracting positive feedback [145][146][147], DePiep excluded. Four-and-a-half years later, nothing has happened due to DePiep's intransigence and, I allege, WP:OWN issues.

For an example of petty behaviour today by DePeip, I added a section break at the start of this section so that I would be easier for me to ass this comment, and easier for others to follow the flow of the thread. DePeip reverts me [148] never mind I changed none of the content of his reply.

Here is a recent WP:OWN claim by DePiep. [149]

With fifteen blocks since 2009 [150] it is evident that DePiep does not, or chooses not to, learn anything and shows an ongoing, repeated pattern of incivil behaviour. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot give a complete response at the time. I don't think that such a response is needed from me, either (for instance, I have explained my position on the first part of my post, and DePiep has explained theirs, and there's that. Similarly, a response on the fifth part is not needed because I previously agreed to drop that line of reasoning), although there are many references to my edits. I am merely asking other editors to examine the presented diffs closely.

Lied? DePiep, you said twice on this page that I personally attacked you by claiming you had lied. This is not correct. What I did say is that you brought up the argument that you knew to be incorrect. You did not say anything that was factually incorrect with the intent to deceive other editors, and I did not use the word "lie" to describe your words. I suppose that you could have made that mistake entirely honestly the first time, but I explained my words since then to make sure you understood me correctly, and then you still used the notion that I personally attacked you by accusing you of lying. Moreover, you saw that post of mine before you wrote the second charge: you quoted that post twice in your message. However, you did not even acknowledge the central point that I was making. If you disagreed with it, that would be one thing, but not acknowledging is completely different from that.

What a personal attack is When the idea that I personally attacked DePiep was brought up, I checked the definition of a personal attack. There is a list of things that are considered a personal attack; the one item on that list closest to edits that are being discussed is this: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." It was my honest understanding that providing those diffs on that page would give the impression I was purposely making DePiep look bad in front of other WP:ELEM editors. When I was told with such an accusation might be put against me, I learned the definition, and I wanted to stay clear of such a charge against myself. For that reason, I provided all diffs necessary to establish my case on the very next day, so that what I said no longer lacked evidence. (For what it's worth, I think that what I said does not constitute an accusation, and I specifically tried to word that phrase in the least accusatory manner I could think of, but I acknowledge the possibility that other editors may disagree with me.) However, all of those links did nothing to prevent a second charge of personal attack via accusation of lying, when it was no longer valid however you look at it.

Why press the second charge? I was going to write, "DePiep, please tell me in your own words why you pressed that second charge when you had read my reply, which I know since you were referring to it?" However, one can learn from this question (which I found when I was in the middle of writing this message) that DePiep did not process my message addressed to themselves but nonetheless acted upon it. I don't see how communication is possible in circumstances when a message is written to a user and they use it as evidence against the original writer without even processing the defense in it.

Personal attacks by DePiep I'd like to remind everyone of one definition: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." I will bring up one quote from the starting message: I was told I was "turning GF BRD edits into personal attacks. No matter how many diffs and logic clarifications I add." That's a serious accusation, and it lacks evidence. Moreover, this unbased attack was made when DePiep knew I would not respond: I wrote previously that I wouldn't (see edit summary). It's a personal attack, and DePiep had a week to expand upon his words and provide some backing for their words. They chose to dismiss the part regarding this accusation as irrelevant. Here is another quote from WP:PA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" (emphasis in original). I presented in the starting message an edit, in which DePiep created a section in Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 9, 2020; the section was titled "R8R" and its contents were, "Per R8R's habit: always revert, simply deny arguments, never discuss, never aim to improve." This is exactly disparaging, and it is therefore a personal attack.

Final remarks I wrote this message late in the evening yesterday, and I only sent it after I re-read it the this morning. I did my best to not write more than it was necessary but I apologize to other editors if that's still too much.--R8R (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The saga continues

I do not understand the basis or need for the "hostile" tone of this edit [1] by User:DePiep. DePeip says, "Sandbh does not OWN the PT." Quite so. I have never claimed such ownership. Nobody owns it.

DePiep adds:

"You [Sandbh] keep changing FA Periodic table and its supporting features without crisp support. That is not acceptible. If you keep editing and behaving this way, I will have you blocked."

The context for this post by DePeip was a contribution/edit I made to the PT article [A]. Four editors subsequently fix some typos: [B], [C], [D], [E].

DePiep sees what I have done and posts the "hostile" edit I referred to above.

In response:

1. I do not "keep changing" the PT article. I recently WP:BOLD attempted to change the PT graphic [2], in the context of much background discussion at WP:ELEM. I explained the basis for my edit [3] and pinged WP:ELEM members [4]. Three WP:ELEM editors posted some minor comments and suggestions in response [5] [6] [7]. NB: There are only four to five active members of WP:ELEM: User:R8R, User:YBG, myself, and User:Double sharp.

Nobody disagreed with the change. DePiep reverts me [8].

DePiep then asks me to, "Please list where you prove consensus for each of the detailed changes." [9]. Note the expectation for me to "prove" consensus (when none was required in the first place) and I that I do so "in detail". I WP:BOLD post an updated version of the graphic, in light of comments and suggestions, and ask DePiep to D rather than R, if he has o/s concerns [10]. DePiep, continuing to act like a jerk, reverts me again [11]

2. Since nobody owns the PT article there is no requirement for DePiep's notion of "crisp support" before editing.

3. DePiep threatens to have me blocked. DePiep cannot do so. He can of course (after discussion) report my behaviour here, should he choose to do so.

4. Following my revert, I am happy to D with him in the context of WP:BRD, to see if we could agree a reasonable way ahead. If necessary this could include seeking consensus within WP:ELEM. What happened instead was the edit that it is the subject of this post. Without further discussion, DePiep further edits the PT article [12], [13], [14], effectively undoing my work, in the absence of the "crisp consensus" he accused me of not obtaining. (Of course, DePiep is entitled to anyone's work in a civil, cooperative manner, with due discussion, where required, including consensus seeking).

In summary, the preceding is a further example of DePiep's behaviour of concern. This behaviour falls significantly short of WP:CIVIL:

"Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."

In this light, I repeat my support for R8R's request for:

"A ban [for DePeip] from editing on chemistry-related topics in a broad sense: that is, including articles, talk pages, the project, template, and file namespaces for a sufficient period of time." Sandbh (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: I think it has been established that you undo other editors freely if you think that their actions lack consensus, regardless of whether the changes made in an edit have been actually disputed. Sandbh provides here one example of that. I provided more in the starting message of this section ("Sandbh, believing he had a consensus backing him, asked DePiep for a similar approach on Friday, only to be undone by them in eight hours.", you need to read the edit rationales of the edits listed in this quote; "At one point, Sandbh expressed frustration that stemmed from what he formulates as DePiep's unwillingness to give an idea a try without prior discussion and DePiep responded by confirming that but in different words"). Here is also an example from a year ago, one that I have not brought up so far. I hope that is enough to demonstrate a pattern here.

The idea of Wikipedia is that it's "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That quote comes from the Main Page. That notion is expanded upon in Wikipedia:Be bold, which is an official guideline of English Wikipedia. WP:BOLD essentially says that you think your edit is good, you should feel free to give it a try. If you know your action will be undone because you have not obtained explicit consensus yet, you may end up not doing what bold edit you could have made; for that reason, actions that make editors obtain consensus of a community before making an edit contravene the spirit of that guideline. Here's a quote from WP:BRD, which is a supplement to WP:BOLD: "Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit." However, in those edits I have mentioned in the previous paragraph, you did precisely that: you undid edits without presenting any substantial objections; merely a lack of an explicit consensus. Those multiple actions violated the spirit of WP:BOLD and the letter of WP:BRD; the most recent such violation occurred less than twenty-four hours ago, so these violations continue.

You are a long-standing member of the Wikipedia community, so you know about those rules. They have been brought up recently, too: WP:BOLD was mentioned a few times over the span of the last couple of weeks, both at WT:ELEM and in this very section. I quoted you referring to WP:BRD in the starting message of this section. So you do know the rules, and you continue to break them. I would not have even contemplated coming here in the first place if I believed there was another way to stop this. There was one time when I thought that things could get better: you recognized you were wrong and thanked everyone for bringing yourself to your senses (Sandbh said you were "very welcome"). Unfortunately, that feeling didn't last.

I understand well what the problem is, and the problem is such edits. I came here to support a block as a solution because I don't believe there is another way to stop this improper behavior. Your actions during both ANIs only reinforce that belief in me.--R8R (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Simple: edit warring can lead to a block. Given the recent exchanges wrt non-consensus major edits, it is convenient to write that straight, as the addressee is obviously aware of the problem. Also, notions of "OWN" etc. are talkpage-level statements, to be handled locally. Yes such a talk may not develop greatly or easy, but problematic content talks including tough procedural notes are not solved by ANI. So I still do not see a case in here. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't understand the particular relevance of the first two sentences (are you saying somebody is edit warring? if so, who and what is the evidence?). OWN may be a local matter if it's a one-time issue, but if there's a pattern, then the pattern must be stopped because it disrupts normal editing for other users. Nobody owns anything here---that's an official policy of English Wikipedia, and its repeated violations should be reported. In any case, why did you choose to tell me about that? I haven't claimed once that you were owning anything, neither here nor in the previous discussion, though I find it curious you'd want to downplay the severity of such an action. In a vast majority of cases, content talks are fine as long as they are not a prerequisite for edits. I don't doubt your sincerity when you say don't see a case here despite all the rule violations pointed out by other editors and myself. That is precisely the problem; discussion would be more helpful otherwise.--R8R (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The reason that this overall thread is not gaining traction or participants is that once again, it did not follow (and continues not to follow) ANI Advice, which link I posted three times in regards to the previous thread on this same subject. That said, I Support an indefinite TBAN on DePiep from chemistry-related topics, broadly construed.

  It's very clear that DePiep behaves in a unilateral, bullying, non-collaborative way on these articles and talkpages, and that what is more, he hasn't taken the hint from these recent ANI filings to desist from such behavior. On the contrary, he has simply ramped up his behavior, with edits like this [151], just yesterday. Seeing as DePiep has already demonstrated serious behavioral problems elsewhere, as evidenced, for example, here [152] and here [153] as well as by his block log [154], I submit that unless he demonstrates his ability to edit collegially and civilly on other topics, he is possibly heading for a site ban as his next sanction, for lacking the competence to work in Wikipedia's collaborative environment. Softlavender (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender:: First of all, as I replied earlier extensively in my #Reply to OP, the original complaint here is a reopening of an earlier complaint. Your earlier note here that it was "a new and different, good-faith thread, complete with diffs and many more examples from many more discussions" [155] (first of all let me note that I did not introduce a GF doubt at all). The opening paragraph by R8R has serious misrepresentations, and the first complaint was closed with a judgement on both R8R's diffs provided(!) and on the threads that were linked by complainant (so reading the threads instead of diffs). Therefor, the closing was final. Furthermore, here you introduce diffs to old, closed and concluded threads. Since they are closed it means that they are not new, and not an argument. Accepting those as an argument reads "I want you be blocked because you were blocked", which is no righteous verdict. Finally, I ask you to consider that actually there is no case for ANI, as multiple editors have noted, since the cases brought up are considered talkpage-issues, not ANI. -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This very much seems to be six of one, half a dozen of the other. I see uncivil comments from both sides and it would be unfair to single DePiep out solely for this as he is I feel not the only problem here and I would like to point out Softlavender that the comments like the one you have linked have continued from both sides. Sandbh's behaviour has been very poor as well, particularly on this board and for continuing uncivil comments. The continuation of this issue by R8R and Sandbh is poor as well. It was dealt with once and all we see is the same issues being regurgitated as the previous thread and now resulting to desperate measures to try and get their own way going back two plus years now. Sandbh and R8R should not be trying to ignore the rules of Wikipedia or claim that they have consensus for a different set of rules or expected behaviour within Elements which seems to be more stringent than Wikipedia itself. R8R should take what people say with a pinch of salt and not choose to be offended, yes you are a non native speaker, but take some time to learn how people use phrases before choosing to take offense for example your complaint about WTF. Said a lot normally in confusion and is not normally aimed to be personal. R8R you can complain all you like about DePeip's conduct on the feature 9 October page, but from a glance I see several rather unhelpful comments which seem to suggest that you did not really listen to him or Dank over two threads (they were trying to help you uphold wikipedia rules) and some of the comments from you are just as uncivil. Again Sandbh going into a thread 8 days after and undoing DePeip's edit is rather deliberate and provoking, yet you want the same treatment of silence is consensus. You can't have it both ways. Sandbh should note that just because no one else reverts you does not mean that your edit was OK as noted in the first thread where other people then said you had to do x, y and z to fix it. It seems to be that Sandbh has a bad attitude to DePiep and R8R jumped on the chance to try and shove him out. Where it got nowhere R8R started a new thread claiming his portion hadn't been dealt with when Girth had answered and summed up his problem. No one else from elements has commented on this and from looking DePiep has been correct in most of his reverts and they have been in good faith. I Oppose a T-ban for DePiep. If this continues to be an issue then sanctions against Sandbh and DePiep would be the way to go as they seem to be the only ones with an issue with each other. Sandbh seems to have a lot of issues with other users considering the content of this one, yes I know it was struck but still says something and the ANI thread titled Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh and this thread. These links proves once and for all that banning DePiep will not solve the issues at Elements. Finally if you STOP trying to POV the topic area it would help. I know you are getting published articles of your work, but that does not mean that you get to put it in Wikipedia before it is published or other sources before they are published. PREPRINT's from what I understand are also a no, no. Which I see is a frequent issue from this case which I think is one of the root causes. In addition DO NOT put your own ideas/or ideas of others in which are not even published. There's a comment from Sandbh telling DePiep that he should consider an idea that is not published! Basically this is a long winded way of saying draw a line under all the behaviour just noted in my comment and move on. Games of the world (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "It was dealt with once". No, it wasn't dealt with at all, which was why this thread was opened, especially since DePiep is doubling down on his bullying and threats. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: A few hours after you posted this, I put up my #Reply to OP. It also deals with this "was dealt with". The very first diff I gave is [156]. The author says that "I do see that you [Sandbh, complainer] have several times on the WP:ELEM talk page been discussing editors instead of content; here are some in the discussions in question: ... [+ 6 diffs]". This shows that the original complaint by Sandbh was judged, and its threads (not diffs) were read for judgement. So the first complaint was judged and concluded, even while complainer did not add diffs. The author of that diff: Softlavender. -DePiep (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I tend to agree with Softlavender's comment above. I didn't know any of the contributors involved in this dispute, but telling someone you will "have them blocked" is a kind of bullying and I see it more than once in DePiep's history. Deb (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have replied to the OP extensively above (#Reply to OP), obviously after these subsection comments were made. I think my reply serves these here too. -DePiep (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Polite comments re Games of the world allegations

I regret the need for this post. Since allegations referring to me have been posted I presume I may exercise a right of reply.

1. My behaviour on this board the first time I posted a grievance was uncivil. As well as learning a lot about how not to do a grievance I posted an apology to the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard.[157]

2. If my behaviour since that time is perceived to be incivil please post the diffs.

3. Re, "The continuation of this issue by R8R and Sandbh is poor as well" and "It was dealt with once". Yes, it was dealt with once via closure as I was unable to provide the diffs in a timely manner due to physical and mental health issues. I have not discussed any of these matters with R8R either within WP or via PM. That he chose to raise a grievance of his own concerning DePiep was his prerogative.

4. Re, "Sandbh and R8R should not be trying to ignore the rules of Wikipedia or claim that they have consensus for a different set of rules or expected behaviour within Elements which seems to be more stringent than Wikipedia itself." I don't consciously try to ignore the rules of WP. If there are examples of such please post the diffs. Within a project I interpret two kinds of consensus, tacit or explicit. Tacit means no or little controversy; explicit means consensus formally obtained, noting consensus does not require unanimity.

5. If I reverted an 8-day old edit by DePiep I didn’t see it until then.

6. The x, y, z things other people said I “had to do” to “fix it" were instead comments and suggestions [158] [159] [160].

7. That other WP:ELEM members have not posted to this thread may be because they haven’t been notified of it. The first time I did so I was accused by Games of the world of apparent canvassing [161] As Black Kite noted, "It is not canvassing to post a notice of an ANI discussion on a discussion page where the issue actually occurred. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)".

8. The struck out comments re my alleged behaviour [162] were part of a WP:ANI grievance withdrawn by the same editor. That editor posted an apology to my talk page. [163]

9. I don’t cite unpublished work.

10. I’ve never published a preprint, so I don’t understand why you said, "Which I see is a frequent issue from this case which I think is one of the root causes." I float lots of ideas and incorporate quite a few in my edits. If a citation is needed I provide it. Yes, I do raise ideas within WP:ELEM. That is what a project is for. Whether or not the ideas are actioned depends on how they are received and literature support.

12. I’ve been editing for nine years, with no block record. I can’t recall being warned by an admin (on my talk page) for bad behaviour. I’m not ruling it out; I just can’t recall any such.

13. @Games of the world: When you make allegations concerning my behaviour sans diffs or what seems to me to be a lack of a full appreciation of the circumstances, I feel upset. In future I would prefer that you follow the advice set out in the WP:BOOMERANG essay re "Responders: Investigate fully" before commenting or making allegations of incivil behaviour. I make this polite comment and request as a form of assertive communication. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am only a very small person here and expect my views to carry little weight, but if the massive effort in creating and sustaining the above had gone into mainspace, we'd have several more articles. It's incredible how much time and text this has generated and how very little has been achieved as a result. Can some wise head please not close it for all our sakes? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Alexandermcnabb. As I see it, it is a case of short term pain in the hope of long term gain. I support a T-ban. R8R supports a T-ban. Softlavender supports a T-ban. Deb has expressed an inclination to agree to such a ban. DePiep himself, has incurred 15 blocks since 2009, and was under (still is AFAIK) threat of an indefinite ban from WP in the event of another breach. Even Games of the world, who opposes the ban has had two blocks of their own and recently received a suggestion from an admin suggesting, “you might want to consider whether your time might be spend more productively on a different part of the project.” [i.e. other than WP:ANI][164] I hope that provides sufficient context. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Will you stop with the hysteria and bullying? What you are doing here seems like it is carrying on and on and on until someone agrees with you and you get your own way. The fact that I have been blocked is irrelevant along with what someone wrote on my talk page, I still have a reasonable and objective view. The fact is you are fast testing people's good will and time here. In fact I would go as far as stating that you've missed the point of Alex's post entirely. Games of the world (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Outside perspective

I have been following this thread for quite a while now, and feel like a predictable pattern has emerged. I'd like to try to sum up what I feel are the problematic issues on all sides in this dispute. Full disclosure: I have interacted with DePiep about a decade ago, probably in the area of WP:WikiProject Writing systems - there is a barnstar in my userspace with DePiep's name on it - but I honestly can't remember the tenor of our interactions from all those years ago, so I don't believe there is any bias in my perceptions.

1. DePiep there is nothing improper with the new discussion. The previous one was closed because diffs were not provided in a timely manner by the original complaintant to verify their concerns. There are no statute of limitations or double jeopardy that mean someone can't later come back with something verifiable to start the conversation again.
2. R8R your walls of text make issues harder to address. A simple list of problematic difs and a paragraph or two would have been far more effective in making your case than the long slogs we had to read. Your lack of conversational fluency causes you to take offense at innocuous uses of things like "WTF", and this causes avoidable friction in your interaction with other users.
3. Sandbh Wikipedia's prohibition of WP:OR includes things that haven't been published yet. Since all material MUST be verifiable, the conclusions from any papers that are unpublished are catgorically inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
4. "No consensus" is a reason to revert an edit ONLY if the edit actually defies a consensus established by discussion. Additions do NOT need to be pre-approved. This edit by DePiep is unacceptable. If Sandbh believes that they are implementing a consensus from a recent discussion, the proper way to register an objection is to document the implementation at that discussion so that others can either agree or disagree with it, and then revert if others believe it was premature.
5. DePiep, edits like this are absolutely unacceptable. In fact, you should have been immediately blocked as per your indefinite editing restriction as of 2018-05-29. The tenor of your interactions with other editors need to change immediately.

• Suggestions:

• DePiep has several problematic behaviors that need to stop immediately.

• Their pattern of reverting instead of constructively discussing is disruptive and problematic, and they should observe WP:0RR in articles under WP:ELEM with unambiguous vandalism being the only exception. If they have a concern about an edit that another editor has added in good faith, the appropriate venue is the talk page, where you most importantly need to offer constructive alternatives instead of just objecting to what others have done.
• Any edits like the "Please, grow up and behave" linked above should be immediately reported by any user, with reference to DePiep's indefinite editing restrictions (use WP:EDRC shortcut). Admins should immediately blank such edits and place a block on DePiep as is appropriate to prevent disruption to the Wikipedia community. DePiep needs to take a good deal of time right now to go through their editing history to strike out all such comments and apologize for them.

• R8R you need to understand that you may not have the full cultural context with certain uses of language, and that WP:AGF applies to language use by other contributors. You could use more of your energies and native fluency to help improve Russian Wikipedia, which you have edited less than 4% as much as en wiki. Lastly, WP:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Russian would get a HUGE boon from a participant with your formidable language skills. Any or all of those courses of action could drastically improve your editing experience and make you an incredible asset to this project.

• Sandbh please fully vest yourself into understanding WP:V and WP:OR. Your reactions to being challenged leave something to be desired, and you would be well served by taking your time when it comes to reading consensus in a discussion. More than a few of these situations would not have occurred if you weren't in a hurry to read a consensus before the conversation had run its course. A good rule of thumb would be to put in a formal conclusion, and give time for anyone else to object. There is no timeline on Wikipedia, and at its heart, consensus means that EVERYONE is okay with a course of action. A single editor with a substantive concern is worth hearing out no matter how long it takes. Learn to ask how you can meet their concerns instead of forcing them to deal with changes you've already made. Sandboxes and userspace drafts are an excellent place to work if you are trying to really get full input from others.

Okay, that's pretty much everything I've observed. If there are any other outside observers that have anything to add, please do so. VanIsaac_WS^cont 06:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Van: Thank you for your contribution and suggestions. WP:V and WP:OR or things along those lines, have been raised, IRC, by Games of the world; DePiep; and yourself. I do not know where this is coming from or the basis on which it is raised. Do you have examples where I breach these policies in the article space? I "always" AFAIK discuss issues with the potential to impinge on WP:V and WP:OR among WP:ELEM members or WP:CHEMISTRY members. Or I WP:RFC and observe the associated outcome. I edit the article mainspace in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:V as required. I am aware of WP:OR, having had this policy drawn to my attention early in my WP editing career.

I am aware of WP:CONSENSUS. I note it says consensus does not require unanimity; that consensus is normally implicit and an invisible process; and that any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.

Thanks again. Sandbh (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vanisaac:. 1. The diff you refer to under "edits like this" was provided in the first complaint, and it was discussed. The conclusion was No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented. Obviously this judgement includes that diff. 2. In my #Reply to OP I have expanded on the "no reopen" issue. (In short, original text prevails: I show that this complaint has been judged already. Also, I point out that complainer R8R here starts with wrong assumptions/statements re that first complaint.) -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd merely like to add that Girth Summit told me during the previous ANI that the wording used by DePiep wasn't quite as bad as I thought it was, and I agreed. That is precisely why I did not press this charge this time.--R8R (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

May I add further section breaks?

@R8R, Games of the world, DePiep, Softlavender, Nil Einne, Euryalus, Nigel Ish, Mr rnddude, Salvio giuliano, Deb, Alexandermcnabb, and Vanisaac: I propose to add further section breaks to this thread to make it easier to follow. My first two attempts to add a section break were reverted by DePiep on the grounds that I had attempted to change his post [165][ [[166]. I have now added a section break [167] (provided DePiep does not revert me for a 3rd time). Does anybody have any objections to my proposal to add further section breaks so as to make the thread easier to follow? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer that you do not 'organise' the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree. It may be in good faith but I would still say that it is borderline refactoring others comments which is not acceptable and will cause an issue. Games of the world (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If there's one further section break - CLOSED - then I, for one, would be glad... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley vandal

An IP has spent much of September vandalizing articles by adding a false writing credit to "Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley tm".

Editors include

• 2600:100B:B122:3D0C:0:32:B4FA:DB01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B112:6E16:0:44:8F7D:7801 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B12B:D5BF:0:4B:E3ED:6801 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:100B:B12C:E73A:0:43:63D2:5401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles include

• Where Are You Christmas?
• Long Trip Alone
• Sugarland
• Stay (Sugarland song)
• Firecracker (song)
• Me and God
• All My Friends Say
• Long Trip Alone (song)
• Anyway (Martina McBride song)

They started back up this morning on All My Friends Say and Where Are You Christmas?. Is there anything that can be done short of watchlisting ever article hit and reverting? Helper202 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure if this is vandalism. Looking through the articles provided it seems the IPs are trying to add information about the writer of these items... "Eloris Lori Elizabeth Williams Presley". I do not know if this information belongs in the articles. I could not be bothered to look. Lightburst (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not finding evidence that this writer (ELEWP) had anything to do with the songs. But I will see if any other editors find something. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no source to show this at all anywhere. Revert if it's changed, and handle it like normal vandalism. If possibly a range block might be used as it's coming from one IPv6 range it appears, however I'm not an expert on range blocks. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone has been adding that false credit to various lyric databases which are user edited. The only other mention of a person of that name is a blogspot blog and a similar facebook page where the person makes some less then credible claims about being "Katrina first responder, NASA, FEMA, ARMY,05-08. Liaison to President George W. Bush. Member of Cambridge Who's Who 09. Prayer/Pledge bill. Katrina Renaissance Village Art by eloris presley in 4 museums. Obama aid. Contract with Guinness World Record." Helper202 (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a good candidate for an edit filter, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the disruption is continuing today. A filter would be great. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked users are appearing again to disrupt the debate.

Hi~

I previously reported a blocked user threatening me and he was blocked. [[168]]

He appears on the discussion page after he regenerates his ID and is interfering with the discussion.[[169]] His ID 'Vamlos' His claims and actions are just like his previous dolls. There's no doubt about it. He even indirectly testified to the same person as the blocked IP [[170]]

I don't want to repeat Sockpuppet investigations. He is causing too much damage to the Wikipedia.Bablos939 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

To the wikipedia admins please understand that Bablos939 had been warned multiple times for wrongfully accusing many editors as sockpuppets because of opposition to his opinion

Bablos939 had been repeatedly warned before of opening SPIs by not giving evidence of any claims. He accused many accounts as sockpuppet and were proven wrong by never providing evidence. I also like to point out that many previous users knows he is a Korean and that he writes anti-Chinese edits in wikipedia.

Editor/or admin RoySmith in 13:18, 8 June 2020 said " If you have specific evidence that there's socking going on, please present it in the form of diffs, i.e. editor1 made this edit, and editor2 made that edit. Vagues assertions of socking, links to talk pages, etc, aren't useful. At this point, this is borderline disruptive because it's making a lot of work for people to process your requests." --

And I also found this, forgot to edit this too " Closing this with no action taken. I have requested that Bablos939 refrain from participating in SPI until they get more practical experience. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)"

Bablos939 has a history of accusing many editors withouth edvidence.

My first post to the diccussion page is that there was perharps sockpuppetry going on in casting aditional votes. And I present my evidence with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sockpuppetry#Casting_additional_votes

IP address of 116.123.12.44 shows it's from Seoul city of South Korea

IP address 220.117.225.165 also shows it's from Seoul city of South Korea ( if you search the IP with another it shows Seongnam a satellite city of Seoul )

Bablos939 also shows that he from South Korea based on the fact that he has Korean google translation.

All 3 of them shows a clear Korean link and could be casting additional votes to help eachother and I suspect they are all Bablos939. An Ip address sockpuppet investigation should be done to see if all 3 are related if this continues. Because not only are they all from South Korea , they are all basically from the same city. Vamlos (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vamlos: how is it you know so much about Bablos939's history considering your account only started editing a few days ago? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've known him through several months already. People have posted his username in multiple online forums. I've recieved a message in my inbox from reddit and was provided a link to wikipedia and to other forums. I didn't interfere though since the others were handling it

FOR EXAMPLE. In these Noticeboard forums.

https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/wikipedias-anti-chinese-racist-bablos939-chinese-prostitutes-chinese-women.286753/

https://samreally.rocks/showthread.php?t=776742

Everything he wrote was anti-Chinese, insulting Chinese women and defaming Chinese men. Also when I first read that forum I though he had obession with Chinese women and people but in general I realize what he really hates is Chinese men. Vamlos (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Second reply to Nil Einne

I also want add 2 serious reports about Bablos939 which are extremely offensive. I want to add of these IP address and accounts. 41.34.93.140, 102.44.199.16, 41.232.35.139, Bamnamu, Shinoshijak 70.77.154.228 , that Bablos939 had falsely accused repeatdly. My own opinion at least half of them recieved the same message I did or learned it through, this is my own speculation. But all of them were checked and found to be unrelated with eachother but that doesn't stop Bablos939 from accusing everyone as a sock by making false claims and lies on all of them.

Bablos939 completely abuse his wikipedia authority, over-exceeding, repeateadly SPAMMING the same repeteaded accusations to a total of 6 admin editors or people in charge. And lkater reported on the administrator board wt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmartin969 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmartin969&diff=962664818&oldid=961763647 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&diff=prev&oldid=96054630 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yamla ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamla&diff=prev&oldid=960504938 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mz7 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7&diff=prev&oldid=960332846 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&diff=prev&oldid=962848475 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_B123 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_B123&diff=prev&oldid=960357945

Same repteaded false accusations on the admin board but was dimissed in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=963035782

Extreme racism and offensive insults against Chinese women, in a aggressive manner

Under his own talk page ( at the bottom ) someone wrote a message of peace to him and he wrote extremely offensive things towards Chinese women and Chinese people

It's under his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939

That was in Bablos939 (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2020

And in a talk page he wrote this the same thing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interracial_marriage&diff=980938562&oldid=980920514

That was in 10:31, 29 September 2020, he said this two times without and his last one was a racial attack and far offensive than last one Vamlos (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the fact that you just happened to get a Reddit DM/Reply Message,(I think that its important to know which one, as people refer to getting a ping from Reddit as getting something in their inbox) is really just, setting off some alarm bells. also the fact that you want to skip a Sock Puppet Investigation sets off bells for me as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:COI, WP:BLP and WP:RELIABLE issues

• Abbie Conant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Munich Philharmonic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tom kearsey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Transcendental36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm concerned about Tom kearsey (talk · contribs)'s agenda, with edits on behalf of Abbie Conant across the platform and addition of non notable musicians to several articles. A persistent addition of WP:BLP violations to make a point here: [171]; [172], with a reliance on primary sources and court documents. Hasn't responded to WP:COI message. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Transcendental36 (talk · contribs) hasn't helped, twice restoring the unacceptable content and warning me for edit warring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:INACCURATE, outright removing the content which you deem suspicious is not the solution to this matter. Your edits have been reverted for content removal. Please see WP:RMV for more information. Thank you. Transcendental36 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Under no circumstances is it acceptable to include After Celibidache's sudden death in 1996, the alleged child sex offender James Levine took over as chief conductor of the orchestra, serving until 2004. To lean on WP:INACCURATE as justification begs the invocation of WP:CIR. This, or a variation, has been added to the article four times, twice by Transcendental36 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65FA:133E:9CFB:A746 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How is this a WP:RELIABLE issue exactly? Correct me if I'm wrong. but there exists 5 reliable news sources backing that statement. Transcendental36 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit in question for reference Transcendental36 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There ought to be nothing inherently wrong with trying to amplify the voices and include women in these lists who have been neglected or ommitted in reference. Just because their articles don't exist yet should not mean they can't go on the list with good references. It is ignorant to call any of these people non notable. Mentioning that Levin is an alleged sex offender should not be precluded from his mention in ANY context. To actively suppress these allegations is abhorrent.

I'm sorry about being a Wikipedia novice and making a big section on Celibidache's sexism without proper page talk concensus. I have acted on other fellow users' comments to include it in a more appropriate manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom kearsey (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Transcendental36 is an account created just five days ago, but very clearly not a new editor. They have 148 edits in the article namespace, and every single one is a revert. That does not look like someone who is here to build an encyclopaedia to me (I noticed this discussion when looking at their edits after they reverted one of mine with an inaccurate edit summary). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.152.81 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@46.208.152.81, I must disagree. I have recently taken an interest in fighting vandalism here in the English Wikipedia, and wish to contribute as best of my abilities that I can. The contribution you made included additional content that did not seem referenced, and so I reverted the edit in good faith. Transcendental36 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit did not include any additional content. If you cannot reliably describe an edit, you should not revert it. And your sudden appearance just five days ago, zealously reverting and warning and quoting policies at people, is beyond suspicious. I hope someone is looking into your history. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• While the SPA concerns seem valid, this is not a "non-notable musician". The harassment that Ms. Conant received after passing the (then-unusual) blind audition made a lot of headlines in the specialist music press, and was something of a wake-up call for orchestras in Germany especially, but also the US. A woman making a living as a lead trombone is a Very Big Deal Indeed (brass are quite unreconstructed, ask at the bar after any classical concert, if you can get to it through the crush of brass players). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the article on Abbie Conant is OK with respect to policy (maybe a bit promotional), but the Munich Philharmonic article ought to be rolled back to the 26 September version and fully protected. This would allow time for discussion of the contentious items on the talk page. There is probably no defamation, but there could be questions of WP:Due weight that would need editor consensus to resolve. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've now fully protected Munich Philharmonic for five days on the current version. This means that the Abbie Conant material stays in the article for the moment, but it omits 'alleged child sex offender', which had been reworded by User:Ohnoitsjamie. The text now makes clear that Levine denied the charges. WP:BLP applies to James Levine who is still living. Consider using the talk page to resolve this. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

And what about the overzealous reverter with the 5-day-old account, who caused problems here and is clearly not new to wikipedia? 46.208.152.81 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you. The WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP aspects of that stood out, and I was frustrated by a second account's determination to restore it. There was no debate over the notability of Ms. Conant, but rather the tone of content that was being added at several articles. My initial post noted that other names were being added to articles without notability having been established. Finally, we haven't yet addressed the prevalence of court documents as sources. Access to such data often helps to indicate COI, but regardless, aren't there policies that discourage relying on these? There seemed to be a crosscurrent of responses to my report, and I'm returning only to clarify intent. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that references 22-27 of the Abbie Conant article are to legal documents. Why not propose on the article talk page that they be removed? At the same time you could describe how to change the text so it no longer relies on those sources. If you want, you can propose this using {{Edit protect}}, though if so you should supply the complete wording you want. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, EdJohnston, I just can't remember how flexible our policy is re: legal documents as sources. If we don't allow it, I can proceed with a clearer understanding, and the onus will be on the contributor to supply acceptable sources. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask again: what about the overzealous reverter with the account just a few days old, who caused problems here and is clearly not new to wikipedia? 100% of their edits to articles are reverts; they have contributed nothing to any article, and yet they are threatening people with blocks, attempting to arbitrate article content, and instructing people on how they should edit. No week-old account has the standing to behave in such a way. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that any admins will take further action on this thread. The way is open for you to contribute more on the talk pages at Talk:Abbie Conant and Talk:Munich Philharmonic. You can propose how to reword the article so that the legal citations can be taken out. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about anything to do with those articles. I'm talking about the account just a few days old which was criticised in this discussion, and has made zero substantive edits to articles, yet is going about instructing people in how to edit, threatening them with blocks, quoting policies at them, and generally behaving as if they have been around for years. Despite their attitude and knowledge of how to edit, they have explicitly denied any prior editing history. This is obviously problematic. 46.208.152.81 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:46.208.152.81 may be of interest. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Questionable behavior that needs attention

An IP editor has been repeatedly posting on my talk page despite being asked and warned several times not to. They are unhappy about the way things unfolded at Cedar Point, and despite initially participating in a talk page discussion there, has been persistent to disrupt my talk page. Even after removing the disruption, the editor has been quick to add it back in some cases. Asking here to see if another experienced editor can assess the situation and see if protecting my talk page from this IP range is an appropriate next step, or if another administrative action is needed. IPs involved:

• 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:56B:711A:47BA:67D2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)
• 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:B90E:89C3:21DE:E8A5 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • robtex.com • Google)

Relevant diffs from my talk page:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5
• diff6

Warnings given:

• diff7
• diff8
• Lvl 4 warning

Activity after final warning:

• diff10
• diff11

Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP editor from editing your talk page for a month. This person is also using some other IPs to edit, so it's not a complete lockout, but it's easy enough to partially block them, too, if they become a problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

ninja: when you enabled the 'block', did you first also read all of the deleted mssgs (especially the ones on the Cedar Point article and talk page). p.s. please dont judge me by my fluctuating i.p.; i have zero control over it (and total inability to revert to my prior i.p.s.) thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:B90E:89C3:21DE:E8A5 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no need to read anything anywhere else. You were asked to stop posting on the editor's talk page at least twice back in August [173] [174] and to keep discussion on the article talk page. You need to obey the request and stop WP:harassing the editor. You were of course free to continue to discuss any article content issues on the relevant article talk page like Talk:Cedar Point which is where such discussions belong anyway. Instead you came back at the end of September and continued to post [175] and were asked again to stop [176] (and again later [177]). Yet you continued to post [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]. Whatever else that is beyond your control, something that should be under your control is to stop posting when asked. All it requires is for you to stop visiting the editor's talk page or to stop clicking edit on the editor's talk page after visiting, or to stop typing out a message after clicking edit or to stop clicking "publish" after typing our your message; and if you really lack the self control for any of that then just stop visiting Wikipedia point blank. Since you apparently lacked the self control for any of that, you had to be forced to stop. Your lucky you're only stopped from editing the editor's talk page since frankly an editor who would continually harass someone like you did is not someone who should be welcome here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

why does it seem that the contributors who think that they are god's gift to wikipedia, cause more mahem (by p*ssing everyone else off) than their own contributions can possibly be worth. so, i wonder what happens when the vandals (which y'all created by p*ssing them off, with your "good intentions") finally out-number all of you? (anyway have fun indefinitely defending all of your hard efforts against the vandalism problem you yourselves create, because, sooner or later, you won't be able to keep up with it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:7D23:8AE1:46A7:126D (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

They never said they were "god's gift to wikipedia"; in fact, this more aptly describes you, given your attempts to foist your viewpoints both on GoneIn60 and the page itself (see WP:KETTLE). You attempted to accuse them of conduct issues, which they thought was unfounded (and to be fair, I think it is; an essay can and usually are accepted as a semi-guideline), they chose not to accept it, but you repeatedly tried to harass them in order to coerce them into accepting it. They told you to stop posting on their talk page, and yet you ignored it, and thus here you are. If there are serious conduct issues, then other venues are more appropriate. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 01:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

User:GGT one purpose account and POV Push on Masacres and Killings - Cyprus

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

---

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

• Single purpose account, only edit Cyprus related articles, with a POV push of errasing all kind of information regarding killings, masacres and Human Rights abuses on Greek Cipriot citizens. On September 21On 22 SeptemberOnce September 29Two times September 29.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Man, this is ridiculous. As one can see from my user page, whilst I used to be very active around here, now I’m only here every now and then to check out on my watchlist. That usually involves reverting vandalism and/or POV-pushes from both Greek and Turkish nationalism. I’m mostly active over at trwiki where I’m more needed. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve noticed a certain tendency for nationalistic POV pushing from the Greek nationalistic side. This guy has basically been wikihounding me for the past two days. Ironically, the content he insists on reinserting is content I myself wrote years ago - I added the large part of the material on human rights violations against Greek Cypriot civilians, rapes and the death toll during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, years ago. I know it when this content is being taken out of context and pasted/manipulated on other Wikipedia pages as a “massacre” that it is a POV push, because I freaking wrote it! I know it when massacres that aren’t really “massacres” are being added to a list because I was the one who initially researched actual mass killings of Greek Cypriots (like in Asha and Sysklipos) and added them to the list! And I know that sources like greece.org, which he insists on adding that can surely be seen by any reasonable person as a highly POV source on a Greek-Turkish dispute, is highly biased and unreliable for the purpose of rapes because, well, guess what, I wrote the rest of that paragraph too! Now, enough with this harassment and this ignorance. Also one may want to remind this brave anti-POV crusader of what an SPA truly means. —GGT (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• It's nonsense to call GGT an SPA. I have seen them make numerous positive contributions to Northern Cypriot election articles over the years and while we have had disagreements once or twice, they have always been civil and constructive in discussions. Number 57 22:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Number 57. Now that I've got access to a computer, here is some more evidence to back that up. Here is me adding content to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article about rapes of Greek Cypriot women. Here is me adding more stuff on it. All the way back in 2015. Now, here is the content that our oh-so-sensitive user on "Cipriot" topic insists on reinstating, which I had previously removed as a manipulation of sources/POV push. Lo and behold, same sentences that I myself authored! It is to be appreciated by anyone with a sound mind that it's a different thing to have mass human rights violations/rapes/civilian deaths in a conflict and it is an entirely different thing having massacres. Now, here is me adding information about a massacre of Greek Cypriots, perpetrated by Turkish Cypriots/troops. This was back in 2015 as well. I wonder what an idiotic POV pusher this could be! Perhaps there might be a slight chance that I'm familiar with the global scholarship on Cyprus and know that the material being added is a nationalistic POV push that is utterly false/manipulative? Now I really would like some administrative attention here because as evidenced by their userpage full of lists of "POV pushers", this user filing the request clearly has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and I really dislike having my contribs followed and mass reverted like they did yesterday, and it's really not nice to be accused of pushing POV when you've worked hard for years (as one can see in the history of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article) to maintain these articles free of nationalistic POV. And someone really should explain to this person what an SPA means because it really is very disruptive to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like that and there should be consequences for it. Ah and also perhaps the user may wish to refrain from dabbling in the articles of countries whose nationality he can't even spell properly? (As a "Cipriot" [sic] I find that pretty ignorant, I don't know what "Amerikans" would think!) Like, at this moment I could be helping out on tr.wiki rather than writing this totally unconstructive wall of text. Cheers. --GGT (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Dont use that language on me. Have you cared to read the Edit Summary of the previous editor. Your edits are a mass deletion of sourced content, and is not the first time you attemp to do that.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You really need to stop calling people SPAs, stalking them and misspelling their nationalities before you can complain about their language. And boy, you really don't have a word to say against what I am saying. This is the umpteenth time this user has (perhaps unwittingly but nonetheless) reinstated massively POV content, despite the reasons being clearly explained to them and WP:BRD requiring them to explain the rationale for the inclusion of the content on the talk page and a reversion into the stable version (without the added content) until we establish consensus. Seeing the battleground mentality evidenced by this user's userpage and their general comments against "Turkish" speakers below, I don't see that happening. I don't intend to escalate this to an edit war but I am massively unhappy with the aspersions above and the insistence on reverting to inappropriate content. This is clearly inappropriate behaviour and admin input will be much appreciated. --GGT (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Calm down, your taking all personal here. Im talking about your edits nothing personal against you.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Calling someone an SPA is more than a personal attack, it is an aspersion on their entire reason on being on Wikipedia and is clearly massively inappropriate. You would first need to retract that claim, give up trying to restore POV versions of articles and reason with me on talk pages. Otherwise, as I say, admin attention is very much warranted on your inappropriate behaviour. --GGT (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Mr.User200, you've had blocks in the past for edit warring. GGT also had blocks in the past but not for many years. So how about we let both of you off with a warning, and you both do your best to discuss changes constructively on the article Talk page before making those changes? Deb (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Deb, thanks for your input. I think the best course of action now is to close and archive this as we have reached a consensus at Talk:List of massacres in Cyprus and there is no risk of escalation. I will also respectfully disagree with you that my behaviour merits a warning - I did not instigate new changes but did my usual cleanup as I have done for ~5 years, when my edits got mass reverted and I got called an SPA! Then I explicitly refrained from escalating the situation. And it's a bit unfair to you know, refer to blocks I got when I first started out with Wikipedia, had no idea about how things are around here and didn't even speak proper English (lol). Anyhow, no point in discussing anything now that this is resolved. --GGT (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Racism at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

@User178198273998166172: mentions: ".., I realize that, and it seems Wikipedia's many Turkish editors are subjectively editing to support the narrative of the Turkish and Azerbaijani governments." and adding that I push "governments narrative", although I do not even support the Turkish government. @Mr.User200: stating: ".., but he have bias because he is Turkish" and accusing me of pushing my personal views, which is not true, please check my edit history, almost all my contributions are still present. These comments are clearly racism. Being Turkish doesn't make I have bias. I try to edit neutral as possible and avoiding any edit war. This is not the first time I met these words. Beshogur (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You have a past of POV pushing and edit warring on many Trukish related articles. You dont "avoid edit war" 1234 5. And not one or two editors, a lot of editors and Admins have warned you of the edits you usually make. This issue have been set to settle here.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen any 3RR violation on that article? Considering your history, does not look good at all. Since you have a more recent block. While my last block was 2 years 9 months old. Beshogur (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of them are fresh BTW 29 August and other user response and also this is not the first time you acuse other of "being racist". Mr.User200 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Also I got blocked for reverting a Sockpuppet that was editing with the same POV you have. And that is noted by the Admin that handled the case hereMr.User200 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked too for 1RR and edit warring So what are you talking about??.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You keep reverting content on the Nagorno Karabakh article like you did here editors keeps asking themselves why important information is being systematically errased. Like you did also today.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

More evidence of your POV push today.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would hope than an admin would take a look at this. This isn't some kind of "handbags at dawn" dispute about cars or professional wrestling that we too often see here, but about a real life conflict where people are being killed. What do we pay admins so much for if it's not to get involved when such issues turn up on this noticeboard? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've often said our admins are worth twice what we pay them. EEng 21:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've left a comment at the talk page where the accusations that Beshogur is complaining about were made to warn people not to cast aspersions without evidence and that further incivility would be met with blocks. I'd advise editors here to stop fighting over past dirty laundry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
• Dvtch, if there's anything I can't stand it's these vague smears, "However, a certain user...". I'm going over the rest of the talk page, and that's the kind of talk that really spoils the atmosphere. Phil Bridger, there are few things as difficult as trying to get a whole bunch of editors to adhere to our guidelines if they have serious POVs on both sides and care more for their cause than for the quality of the article. As for payment, we only get paid for blocks, not for successfully negotiating some dispute resolution, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Drmies With all due respect I was directly smeared multiple times. I was accused twice of being a sockpuppet. I was accused, alongside the majority of editors of "extreme POV pushing". Perhaps that wasn't the most respectful way of going about it, but I was directly smeared by said user who continuously stonewalled consensus and ignored my calls to talk and edited over people. Best. Dvtch (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • That may be so, and you are certainly correct that that "wasn't the most respectful way". More importantly, you're doing it again, here in this very thread where we are trying to get at what the problems are in hopes of solving it. Phil Bridger, I will ask the WMF to double your salary if you figure out what all is going on and what needs to be done. One obvious problem, and it's almost always the same in these problems, is that it's current developments, much of which not verified by internationally recognized sources in English. NOTNEWS applies but is always disregarded, and thus accusations of POV are as readily available as stones for a mob. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I would love to take up your offer, but don't think that I can oblige. I have several skills, but diplomacy is not one of them. I just wish that WP:NOT#NEWS would be enforced, and that we would wait for proper independent reliable secondary sources to emerge before having an article, but consensus seems to be that we should pretend that news reports are secondary sources rather than being the primary sources that any student of history knows them to be. If I could have usefully added anything to the talk page discussion I would have done so before issuing my cri de coeur above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Just a note: Beshogur is blocked again. Shadow4dark (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Vertical Venom

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

This editor has been warned multiple times about adding unsourced information, and after the final warning has done so again in these edits. They are also frequently reverting minor edits (such as image selection/placement) without discussion or proper edit summaries, as seen here. I began a talk page discussion at Talk:Mr. Freeze (roller coaster)#Infobox image, but that seems to be getting ignored so far. I propose short-term page protection at the very least (due to the number of IPs that all seem to edit around the same time and may be the same editor), but Vertical Venom may need one last warning in addition to what's been given.

Thanks for looking into this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Since this post, there have been additional edits with unsourced or improperly sourced information:

• Flight of Fear diff1 – Source added does not support the "Fort Mason security van" or "new photo booth".
• Flight of Fear diff2 – No mention at source about the "on-board video cameras".

Also so far, no response at the talk page of Mr. Freeze despite the user's additional activity there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Another unsourced claim added recently at The Incredible Hulk Coaster article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

why does it seem that the contributors who think that they are god's gift to wikipedia, cause more mahem (by p*ssing everyone else off) than their own contributions can possibly be worth. so, i wonder what happens when the vandals (which y'all created by p*ssing them off, with your "good intentions") finally out-number all of you? (anyway have fun indefinitely defending all of your hard efforts against the vandalism problem which you yourselves create, because, sooner or later, you won't be able to keep up with it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:7D23:8AE1:46A7:126D (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.155.101 (talk)

User also created multiple unsourced changes to Volcano: The Blast Coaster. Although the changes appear to be sourced, investigation reveals that most of it is speculation or fiction. Edits appear similar to other users who have been banned or blocked. Possible sockpuppet of User:Bradley026258.—JlACEer (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:TravelTavern on El Ligero

El Ligero is a professional wrestler who was accused of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and manipulation on social media. These accusations were part of the Speaking Out movement, and as such are repeated in reliable sources.

User:TravelTavern. As can be seen from his contributions, he has no edits that don't relate to El Ligero. First he tried to remove all mention of allegations, claiming he did it "for protection of individuals", and then that he was removing them by request.

After some edit warring between TravelTavern and other users, User:WikiDan61 stepped in to help TravelTavern rewrite the article to remove the names of the accusers. With this, Travel Tavern went inactive for roughly 2 months.

He returned to the article to add an unsourced statement that the sexual assault allegation was retracted and removed. He has slow-motion edit warred to keep that statement in the article despite being reverted several times, with his edit summary always being some version of 'situation updated'. I reverted him last night; despite being inactive for roughly a week he reverted me within 24 hours.

Here's why I am bringing this to ANI rather than treating it as a content dispute. One, it involves a slow-motion edit war. Two, this is a BLP situation. I did a quick google search and found nothing about anyone retracting statements against El Ligero, but if there was an actual retraction, it should absolutely be in the article with a proper source. Three, there is possible bad-faith editing on the part of TravelTavern, who seems to be acting with the intention of whitewashing El Ligero's article. I feel this situation is best brought to the attention of the community. 184.15.52.85 (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned about the sourcing for this content - most of it is sourced to 411mania.com, which has the following disclaimer on its 'About us' page: Our writers and contributors are not paid staff members or employees, they are independent bloggers. 411mania is therefore, by my reading, an unreliable source (WP:UGC), and should not be used to support any assertion on Wikipedia, much less stuff about sexual assault allegations on a BLP. PWInsider I'm less certain about WRT reliability, but that source is very scant on details - while I appreciate the OP's SPA and potential COI concerns, I'm inclined to remove the entire section unless better sourcing can be found. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

PWInsider.com seems reasonably legit, they seem at least to have actual staff - I've cut the 411mania sources and anything not supported by PWInsider as a 'bare minimum' action, happy for others to indicate whether they feel that PWInsider is reliable enough for content of this nature. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: There is better sourcing regarding the allegations than 411Mania (e.g. ESPN), and the article can be appropriately upated. I do wonder about TravelTavern's motives here, as his original edit summaries indicate that he was trying to protect the identity of the accusers, but now appears to be trying to protect the reputation of El Ligero instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiDan61, indeed - I've warned TravelTavern about adding unsourced assertions, and that their apparent COI means they should be using edit requests rather than editing the article directly. Please go ahead and add better sourcing to support these obviously contentious assertions - this is a BLP, we need to be cautious. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

TravelTavern has accepted on their talk page that they have a COI, and given an undertaken not to edit the article further but to use the talk page to suggest any edits they think are necessary. I believe that this can be closed now, but please come back if TT goes back on their word. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph and reduced it to minimum content based on the more reliable ESPN source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Rudeness by HurricaneNerd

HurricaneNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps rudely calling users "liberals" on Talk:Donald Trump, and has said on their talk page that they will commit sockpuppetry if they get blocked. Also, I am concerned that this account has been compromised, as this is outside their normal editing pattern. Goose^(Talk!) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

They just confirmed on their userpage that their account has been compromised. Goose^(Talk!) 01:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A CU would be able to help verify this, right? If they're telling the truth, then I think we just need to keep an eye on them for another day or two. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The result for CU was  Inconclusive, so we do not know if HurricaneNerd's account was actually compromised or if HurricaneNerd is engaging in good hand bad hand editing. Goose^(Talk!) 03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Why would someone hack a random account with few edits? Much easier to just make a sock... Also, how can we really confirm Hurricane has access to their account back, unless someone has previously emailed them and HurricaneNerd can email them confirming they are in control? I am of a mind to simply block their account and tell HurricaneNerd to make a new one, but I'm not sure other's thoughts on the matter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • CaptainEek, do it, and ask if they were responsible for those comments on the Trump talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
    • It is more than a little suspicious that they discovered they got hacked just 8 minutes after the last "hacked" edit, but with email notifications of talk page messages, it's not implausible. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree this is suspicious, but who said random? It seems to me more likely it was a friend fooling around or something. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Fringe focused editor pushing COVID-19-related original research

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

• Special:Diff/974200931/981594379
• Special:Diff/981594481/981594767
• Special:Diff/981601129
• Special:Diff/981595838

This isn't the first time neutrality problems have been pointed out to the user; their talk page and diffs such as Special:Diff/733715529 and Special:Diff/907069779 seem to indicate a persistent problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, user doesn't seem willing to engage in any discourse. Article space block may be in order. They're also about to breach 3RR

Glen (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Glen; I guess we both would already have blocked them if we weren't involved. They have been reverted again, and reverted again since this discussion was started. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked for one week as an edit-warring block, and I've warned that they'll face Covid-19 sanctions should we see any further disruption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic current consensus

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

---

[185] that page needs a look, user vandalising thanks --Investigatory (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually the user has a point just not WP:CIVIL --Investigatory (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1. This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
2. You are required to leave a template on the user's talk when opening a discussion about someone's conduct here. You have not done that.
3. No further administrative action is required here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah i just couldnt edit it, needed an admin, which led to the actions thankyou --Investigatory (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment

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

---

Hi there. I am feeling harassed by a user here on Wikipedia. I told them I wasn't willing to engage in discussion with them anymore, and yet they keep on mentioning me in comments, trying to make me engage in discussion with them. The user is very rhetorical and "subtly offensive." I'm a fragile person and I'm feeling harassed. While I understand that blocking a user (that is, from my part) is not feasible, I hope somebody will ask them to stop texting me, at least on this matter. Here are our last two comments. The user disagreed with me on the usage of a word in English language. He has followed my activities for a while, and made minor edits on several of my articles on art and painting. However, now the matter isn't the disagreement over the usage of the word oeuvre in English language. I'm feeling harassed. You'll find our conversation here and here. Here are our last two comments.

Your previous comment (whose original form will remain accessible forever to reviewers, editors and readers) evinces both your partiality and pretentiousness. You have sough out to grieve me with the speculative and uncalled for comment "yet I have no problem imagining that you are not an artist despite your editing articles about art", while my pointing out that being Belgian doesn't make you the better fit individual to tell an English speaker how to write English was a functional comment, and a fact. I won't engage in discussion with you anymore. Be careful on how you behave on this and any other similar websites. This is a joint effort to widen people's knowledge and help them out, there's no place far edit warring, cheap rhetoric and harassment. And that's it.--Max9844419087 (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Max9844419087 since you raise no substantive objection to WP:MOS, can I take it that you have dropped your opposition to applying it? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Max9844419087 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any harassment here. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Paul August, thanks for your reply. Perhaps not from the point of view of a non apprehensive person, or without having read the conversation through. I believe it is discernible from the conversation, but anyway, feeling harassed is still something you just feel. Which is the case for me.--Max9844419087 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Max9844419087, I read through the conversations on Talk:Diana and Callisto (Bril) and User talk:Andreas Philopater, and to be honest, your comments appear more aggressive than the other editor's comments (examples of your comments: I do accept suggestions (on my English) when they come from people born into an English speaking family and country. – partiality and pretentiousness – cheap rhetoric and harassment – we can wait the opinion of another ENGLISH speaker editor – it may come across pretentious only in the head of an illiterate or biased person). You seem to have drawn the conclusion that AP's connection to WikiProject Belgium means that editor is not qualified to edit on en.WP (Please, edit on Belgian Wikipedia. And abstain fro vandalism.). I see a content dispute about whether to use oeuvre to refer to a single painting, and I see AP making civil, reasonable objections, and I see you taking umbrage.

You are entitled to tell AP not to ping you. I have not been able to find anywhere that you have done so. (Saying "I'm done" does not convey that.) You are entitled to tell AP not to post on your talk page. If you do not want to continue the discussion about oeuvre (which another editor has since removed from the article), don't. If another editor's civil objection to a word is that upsetting, maybe you should consider taking a break from wikipedia for a bit? Schazjmd (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to say, please, edit on Belgian Wikipedia is probably the most amusing thing I'll read this weekend. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

After reading your contributions to Wikipedia? Or looking at usself in the mirror?M Imtiaz (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max9844419087 (talk • contribs)

After this discussion began, the OP left a rather vicious comment on User talk:Andreas Philopater. I have notified AP of the discussion here as they had not been notified. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

...and, OP retired. I think this can be closed. Schazjmd (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notification, Schazjmd. I have not in any way harassed Max9844419087. All our interactions have been on one article (talk) page and on my user page, and the issue at stake is not even a content dispute, but simply a question of wording which as far as I can see has already been satisfactorily resolved by Max9844419087 themself. I have pinged them a couple of times in my replies to their comments, but was unaware that they would regard that as intrusive. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A cursory review of a past version of Max9844419087's talk page shows several other cases of them making various insinuations (and some outright accusations) of harassment, blackmail, bullying, spying, censorship, racism and suchlike against good-faith editors who have politely and routinely pointed out to them relevant Wikipedia policies. Referring one such editor (diff) to Lawsuit constitutes a legal threat. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore:

• "I think you either have some kind of problem with me or with the Slavic people, because you attempted to undo whatever I explored and added as regards Slavic people, for some reason. I hope you are not a racist..."
• "you are trying to do your best to hurt me in some way or the other"

on two user talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Andy. It puts my mind at ease that I didn't somehow precipitate a meltdown. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Goswami666: Promotional editing & other problems

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § User:Goswami666: Promotional editing & other problems

 – — Newslinger talk 11:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE and socking

User

Freshmen160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment

This user is only here to promote non-notable musicians and repeatedly creating deleted articles under different titles and then removing speedy deletions tag using IP addresses (please see Kilo G (musician)). They appear to have copyright and undisclosed paid editing issue as well. GSS ^💬 18:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

+1. It's getting pretty tiresome to revert the CSD removals. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. For the record, this is probably Codo2411 (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

IsaacSorry

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

This user has been warned multiple times by multiple editors for significantly changing lead sections to musician articles without discussion or consensus. This includes:

• Changing orders of paragraphs out of chronology: Note here that their edit reason here only mentions adding "more awards" (one that probably shouldn't be in the lede anyway), but also moves a section about Fleetwood Mac's 1993 reunion and subsequent activity from its chronological place in the third paragraph to the fourth one. That means the timeline skips from the early 90s, then to Christine McVie's departure, and then back to 1993
• Adding incorrect statements: Such as here; Hendrix did not die at a dwelling he owned at his home. The wording that was already here was fine.
• Adding excessive detail to the lead, which are supposed to be short: Such as here.
• Adding OR or otherwise unquantifiable statements to the lead: Such as here. The claim that " The Cure were one of the first alternative bands to have critical and commercial success in an era before alternative rock had broken into the mainstream" is hard to prove and has no source.

All examples above have been reverted, but IsaacSorry has either ignored or has been combative about all warnings they have received. They have continued to make inappropriate edits to lead sections after having been warned at least six times. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "his home" in the Hendrix edit says nothing about ownership (the location was not, though, his home). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Corrected Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Revoking user talk page access

I tried to make this report on WP:AIV but it was removed by a bot since the IP is blocked from the article namespace: 2001:14BB:490:6FAB:FDCA:D4A1:BBE:BE33 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Personal attack, removal of CSD tag on own talk page. User is blocked, but should IMO have talk page editing removed because of this edit. I think that edit is serious enough to take to this page. Sjö (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Took me a while to figure this one out, but I agree. Deb (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

We need to stop the bot from doing that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Vigerslev176DD

Vigerslev176DD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Very recent block and is now disruptively editing Robin Drinkall, a salted page which was just moved to draft by GSS. (And declined at Draft:Robin Drinkall in June.) Think a further block may be warranted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this account. Their only edits have been to spam the encyclopedia with disruptive nonsense about Robert Drinkall. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Cnyirahabihirwe123

Cnyirahabihirwe123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry to be spamming ANI today. This user has created a number of blatant copy-pastes recently, with no signs of being deterred by the numerous warnings on their talk. Seems to be WP:NOTHERE. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and yet another blatant G12, right after the last one was deleted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the pages and given them a 24 hour block for copyright violations. Hopefully this will get their attention. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Hmains and human rights categories

Hmains (talk · contribs) has made hundreds of changes to human rights categories these last days. I noticed a move on the Capital punishment in Israel article from Category:Human rights in Israel to Category:Human rights abuses in Israel? As I understand it, a lawful punishment is not an abuse. When I asked him on his talkpage his reply was "Just because something in 'lawful' does not make it less a human rights abuse. Many human rights abuses are carried out by state actors, many under the color of law. Also see Capital punishment#Human rights. But do as you like.". I am not reporting the editor, but have great doubts as to whether his hundreds of category changes are correct. I'd appreciate your input. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well that's the first time I've ever heard it suggested that killing someone is not an abuse of their rights. Either way, if you're not reporting the editor, the content matter is not an issue for this noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy, unless you lead a very sheltered life then I don't believe that it's the first time you have heard that, although otherwise I agree with you. And, of course, the use of the death penalty in other countries that use it much more often is also an abuse of human rights. And (sorry for too many "ands" at the beginning of sentences) it seems rather strange that the OP should pick on Israel as the country to complain about when this editor has changed categories for many other countries as disparate as Japan and Iraq. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) While I personally believe that capital punishment is wrong, Wikipedia needs to take a WP:NPOV view which is that there is no consensus, globally speaking, whether it is always a human rights violation. (It is banned by European Convention on Human Rights but allowed in US). So capital punishment is recognized as a human rights issue (it often leads to wrongful execution, as stated above) but to classify it as "human rights abuse" is POV at least for now. That's why you should discuss mass changes before doing them (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Responding to a notification[186] by @EEng.). Debresser's view that "a lawful punishment is not an abuse" is manifestly nonsense. To take an extreme example, a nation might enact enact a law requiring that anyone who makes eye contact with a postal worker may be convicted solely on the testimony of one person, and subject to a mandatory punishment of having a limb ground off very slowly in a public place by a mechanical device which starts at the tip and continues to the torso at a speed not exceeding 1mm per minute. If not constitutionally banned, that could be entirely lawful ... but it would undoubtedly be a severe human rights abuse.
  It's also fairly clear that internationally, support for the death penalty is close to a WP:FRINGE view: see Capital punishment#International_views.
  And as a long-term critic of Hmains's editing, I am pleasantly surprised to see that the diff [187] includes a clear edit summary. It's auto-generated by Cat-a-lot, but very clear. And it's part of a long series of similar edits by Hmains, which also seem broadly correct.
  I am also troubled by Debresser's comment I am not reporting the editor, which seems at best disingenuous, and would more plausibly be described in much harsher terms. Opening a thread at ANI with someone's name in the headline is very clearly a case of reporting the editor .... and it is most unhelpful that Debresser chose to selectively quote from the discussion on Hmains's talk, rather than linking to the discussion: User_talk:Hmains#Human_rights_abuses (permalink). If Debresser was unsatisfied with the civil and reasonable responses on Hmains's talk, then the next steps should have been something like WP:3O → topical noticeboard → RFC. This here ANI is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems", but I don't see any prima facie case that either applies here.
  This doesn't rise to the level of a WP:BOOMERANG, but I think that Debresser has earned a few applications of the WP:TROUT for trying to make a drama out of a disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not a European encyclopedia, we need to take the global view on capital punishment. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Guerillero: The European view is supported 2:1 by UN member states: https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1849885920071218. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was out-of-date. That should be "more than 3:1". See https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/a-record-120-nations-adopt-un-death-penalty-moratorium-resolution --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl The reason I came here and didn't go to 3O, for example, is because of the large amount of related edits that Hmains is making, which might justify swifter action that WP:3O can provide.

And what is it you don't understand about "I am not reporting the editor"?

Trout? Drama?? Boomerang??? I asked for an opinion. As you can see, there are editors who agree with my point of view as well. You have the right to disagree, but please, it is you who is introducing drama here... Debresser (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser, it is you you brought the issue to this drama board. Please accept responsibility for that decision rather than trying to blame me for your action.

I also note the contradiction between your opening statement I am not reporting the editor and your statement now that because of the large amount of related edits that Hmains is making, which might justify swifter action. In other words you came here because you wanted to raise the possibility of admin intervention against Hmains ... but you also wanted to somehow pretend that is not what you were doing. Very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Smokva26 adding unsourced or questionable source

Hello, I see that Smokva26 adding youtube as a source in Muhammad Ali of Egypt which is not WP:RS for me. What opinion from other users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.241.205.155 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have (independently of this) asked for page protection of the Muhammad Ali of Egypt-page. YouTube-videos are obviously not WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

2a01:119f:31b:5d00:64b6:46ee:9910:1d2a/39

2a01:119f:31b:5d00:64b6:46ee:9910:1d2a/39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This shifting IP is becoming a bit of a pest.

I first noticed this IP range when I saw this message on my talk page:[188] It took me a while to notice that the IPs were related, but I think I have the range. (Please double check).

• Edit warring at Modulo operation:[189]
• Vandalism:[190]
• More Edit warring: [191][192]
• Trolling:[193]

-Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP address range is currently partially blocked.

On 16:15, 5 October 2020 Ohnoitsjamie blocked 2a01:119f:200::/39 talk from editing the pages Code page 1117 and Talk:Code page 1117 with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only) (Disruptive editing)

I don't think anything more is required unless they start disrupting some other page. This can be closed as "resolved". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfair blocking of my IP

Hi,

My IP address was blocked for a few days and I was accused of edit warring even though I did not edit war. The admin user:Serols acted upon a complaint by user:EDG 543 and in my opinion did so without properly investigating the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Serols#Eastern_Anatolia_Region

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Anatolia_Region&action=history

I request that the admin's privileges be reviewed so he does not keep abusing his powers.

Kind regards, 157.167.128.180 (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This IP has not edited the Eastern Anatolia Region article before. Would you happen to have been IP address 94.120.114.41? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

157.167.128.180 is a proxy server. [194] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sevice - he means this IP.

It is known that some Turks deny the genocide of the Armenians and I am not an admin. You were rightly blocked --Serols (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

157.167.128.180 has been bocked. --Serols (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Bocked for three months, it seems. EEng 07:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

SlaterDeterminant

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

I am more than a little discomfited by SlaterDeterminant's edits since returning after a lengthy hiatus. You can see how an inexperienced user (registered 2008-01-03 but only 61 edits) could think this is appropriate [195], but the argumentation at talk:David Duke suggests a surprising resistance to Clue and a fondness for someone who is, to put it at its most charitable, widely considered to be less than stellar. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment), yes, this worries me as well. I would keep an eye on him before reporting him to administrators. Heart ^(talk) 07:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait you are an admin. Heart ^(talk) 07:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

See also their comments on the No Nazis essay on how Wikipedia should allow contributions from people with "far-right or non-conventional views on race". 86.23.86.239 (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What is basically being said there is that, fine, have those views, but don’t express them here. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I just felt that the essay goes too far in excluding people based on their views instead of their behavior. The quote makes more sense in its original context. I do not have far-right or non-conventional views on race. The quote does not apply to myself. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

SlaterDeterminant, no, it's fine: Nazis are bad. We settled this in the mid-1940s. There was a war and everything. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to make clear that I am not here to promote propaganda or any type of agenda other than writing an encyclopedia. The edits I have made to Infowars and David Duke are just guided by the facts as I see them. Even for people and groups that have seriously messed up beliefs, I think we should avoid just throwing the kitchen sink at them and still try to be accurate and neutral. I don't understand the phrase "resistance to Clue", by the way. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

WP is guided by the facts as reported by reliable sources, not "as I see them". Miniapolis 00:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I see them in reliable sources. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Those sources include David Duke's podcast and also, apparently, the white supremacist website VDARE. These are not reliable. I advise you to start consuming better sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Let us take this edit related to VDARE as an example. VDARE was listed as endorsing Lauren Witzke, based on the reliable source https://delawarestatenews.net/government/sen-coons-skipping-ud-debate/ which actually states that "She’s also received support from far-right website VDARE". I found that VDARE says on its own website https://vdare.com/articles/peter-brimelow-interviews-gop-candidate-lauren-witzke-on-the-idea-of-an-immigration-moratorium that it does not endorse candidates in an article about Lauren Witzke. I decided that the VDARE website, on the question of whether it has endorsed a specific candidate, is likely to be reliable when there is no contradicting information in another reliable source, and because the phrase "received support from" is not the same as "endorse", there was not contradicting information. It seems like a pretty clear open-closed case to me. SlaterDeterminant (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

See, given that you started off on the Duke page saying that you were listening to his podcast, and then only later backtracked to acting like you were checking it out after other reasons (while still defending listening to the podcast), I have to wonder whether you were reading the VDARE site before or after you looked at that Delaware election article.

Really, the only assumptions that we're left with here are that either you're another alt-righter pretending to just be naive in order to hide behind WP:AGF or you really are that naive and you're completely missing why anyone would consider the first option. In either case, your best bet would be to back off, and yet you just keep going.

Now, making the mistake of opening the source you cite, after it says it endorses ideas, it mentions one of those ideas and says that Witzke is the candidate supporting that idea in that election. That's a roundabout endorsement but it's enough for an actual RS to call it as such. But no, you want to take the Nazis' words over mainstream sources for some reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, shit, you couldn't understand how a Duke quote calling black people animals was supremacist. Honestly, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

SlaterDeterminant, VDARE? Srsly? See the perennially discussed sources page foir our views on that particular site. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Problematic user

• Ivan cihanou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tymoteusz Ptuś (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi admins, I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong place but I can't find a more appropriate one:

Please have a look at User:Ivan cihanou. For one thing, I find his user page somewhat problematic.

This user, by his global user pages, is a native speaker of about 25 languages, English apparently being the one exception. He and his sock puppet User:Tymoteusz Ptuś have been banned infinitely on the Polish and the German Wikipedia. His contributions on the latter consisted of more or less incomprehensible machine translations from Polish articles, which seems surprising for a "native speaker" of the language. So you may want to have a look. --87.150.10.143 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In the future, please leave a notice on the concerned editors' talk pages, as is required by this noticeboard's policies. I have done so for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but as you can probably tell, I am doing this for the first time on the English Wikipedia, and should I ever do it again in some distant future, I am sure I will be just as lost as today and certainly won't see that particular policy among those millions of policies that are all over the place here. --87.150.10.143 (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Out-of-process category deletions by user:Hyacinth

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_22#Category:Pupils_of_Olivier_Messiaen was closed as "delete" by Bibliomaniac15. The bot handled the emptying and deletion of the category.

However, Hyacinth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then proceeded to delete 32 similar categories (see log), each with the rationale "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Category:Pupils of Olivier Messiaen":

• Category:Pupils of Bernhard Ziehn
• Category:Pupils of Samuel Adler
• Category:Pupils of Henry Cowell
• Category:Pupils of Virgil Thomson
• Category:Pupils of Niccolò Jommelli
• Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger
• Category:Pupils of Muzio Clementi
• Category:Pupils of Moritz Hauptmann
• Category:Pupils of Maria Curcio
• Category:Pupils of Karlheinz Stockhausen
• Category:Pupils of Joseph Joachim
• Category:Pupils of Joseph Haydn
• Category:Pupils of John Cage
• Category:Pupils of Johann Sebastian Bach
• Category:Pupils of Orlande de Lassus
• Category:Pupils of Paul Hindemith
• Category:Pupils of Robert Erickson
• Category:Pupils of Samuel Adler (composer)
• Category:Pupils of Siegfried Dehn
• Category:Pupils of Simon Sechter
• Category:Pupils of Walter Piston
• Category:Pupils of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
• Category:Pupils of Jan Hřímalý
• Category:Pupils of Horatio Parker
• Category:Pupils of Frédéric Chopin
• Category:Pupils of Ernst Krenek
• Category:Pupils of Darius Milhaud
• Category:Pupils of Engelbert Humperdinck
• Category:Pupils of Charles Seeger
• Category:Pupils of Bernhard Klein
• Category:Pupils of Arthur Honegger
• Category:Pupils of Arnold Schoenberg

Hyacinyth then made 291 edits to articles using WP:HOTCAT, removing articles for from the deleted category: see the 291 edits.

This is an abuse of process. The categories were neither listed at CFD nor tagged as candidates for deletion. If they had been listed, maybe there would have been consensus to delete them too ... but we don't know, because they weren't nominated.

The result is that a lot of categories have been deleted without consensus, and hundreds of articles are now categorised in these deleted categories: see https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/30916 or e.g. Category:Pupils of Darius Milhaud, which still contains 91 pages. So:

• Please can some admin:
  1. restore the deleted pages
  2. revert Hyacinth's emptying of them?
     Obviously, all without prejudice to whatever decision might be made if any or all of those categories is properly nominated at WP:CFD
• Please can Hyacinth be forcefully reminded not to abuse their admin tools in this way?

Note that Hyacinth has not been online for over 5 hours, and their userpage says they are based in Montana, where is now the middle of the night. So I come here first to seek a prompt reversion of the disruption rather than waiting for Hyacinth to re-emerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• (non admin comment) One name springs out in particular - Nadia Boulanger. She was the most famous classical music teacher of C20; and unlike the others, she was prominent as neither performer nor composer. List of music students by teacher: A to B contains around 250 of her pupils who have articles. Each of these categories should go individually through WP:CFD. Narky Blert (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Narky Blert, I wouldn't object to a group nomination, where discussion could show whether there was any support for treating one or more of the categories as an exception to any wider consensus. But there is no applicable speedy criterion, so none of these cats should be deleted without discussion.
    BTW, I have no view either way on whether any of these categories should exist. My objection is solely to the lack of consensus-building in the deletion of categories per a discussion where they were not listed and tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I can't see how that poorly-attended discussion on Messiaen sets any sort of precedent. The arguments centred around whether or not the people in that category were defined by having been his pupils. By extension, everything in Category:Alumni by educational institution would be ripe for deletion. Narky Blert (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree that it doesn't set any formal precedent.
        The substantive arguments for or against deletion should be made in a CFD discussion ... and the reason I brought this to ANI is solely that these 32 categories were not discussed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Narky Blert, agree. Nadia Boulanger is without question one of the most significant figures in the history of music pedagogy. We absolutely must have either a category for her many famous students or a list. As to whether to have a list, a category or both, that would be an ecumencial matter, but it definitely needs at the very least a deletion discussion to hash out the pros and cons. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: Strangely, we seem to have no article on that very important topic. Narky Blert (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Narky Blert, feck! Guy (help! - typo?) 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The precedent is set by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Category:Pupils of Olivier Messiaen. Being a pupil of a teacher is not definitive and not thus not appropriate for a category structure which duplicates List of music students by teacher. Hyacinth (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Not true, @Hyacinth. That CFD decided that being a pupil of Olivier Messiaen is not WP:DEFINING.

That CFD did not make any decision about the other categories, because they were nether tagged nor listed in that discussion ... and there is no basis in policy or practice for deleting 32 categories because there was consensus to delete one similar category. You did not cite any speedy criterion, so this was straightforward unilateral deletion.

This is a very very basic consensus-building issue, and it alarming to see that an admin has such difficulty in understanding that. If you believe that the other categories should be deleted, then feel free to nominate them at WP:CFD, and to cite the Olivier Messiaen CFD as a precedent ... but do not abuse your admin tools to delete categories which have not been discussed. Please revert your out-of-process deletions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This isn't the first time there's been a problem with misuse of the tools with regard to categories under discussion. See the messes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 6#Category:Square roots and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 7#Category:Square roots of integers. I brought this up on their talk page at User talk:Hyacinth/July 20 2015 - October 12 2018#Admin tools. Just like the response immediately above, this seemed to show a lack of understanding of the out-of-process use of admin tools and the problems that causes. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Deacon Vorbis. The attitude displayed in 2018 is not compatible with WP:ADMINACCT, and the understanding of process is equally broken. If @Hyacinth doesn't change their tune, this could escalate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• The sneak deletion of categories by emptying has been a problem for some time. Most people interested in categorization have always regarded this as unacceptable, and there is a proposal (started by me), still open but flagging, to amend the policies to say so, which they don't at present. Some people who do it genuinely don't know how it is regarded by most editors, while others know but don't care. The lack of a policy wording to point to is not good in tackling either group. There has been good support, but one strong objector, and a generally low turnout. Say no more. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Categories undeleted and emptying reverted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, @JJMC89. Great to have the damage undone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• Out-of-process emptying of categories happens far too frequently and in the past week I posted notices about this to 2 experienced editors who continued on with this behavior. Since it is inappropriate but not uncommon, it was unclear to me whether this was blockworthy behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• This morning (European time) I had pinged Hyacinth to Category talk:Pupils of Johann Sebastian Bach, for undeletion of that category, but have seen no reaction thus far. I suggest all of Hyacinth's deletions and category removals of this batch be undone, until further discussion. Further discussion should involve (at least):
  • Proper listing & notifications w.r.t. all categories that would be affected according to the CfD proposal (as already mentioned above);
  • Notification of the CfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, and likely also best at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, in order to attract sufficient input.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: if any WikiProject is interested in any categories, they should apply their project banner to the cats' talk pages. Then they will be notified by Article alerts. It is not he responsibility of nominators to identify WikiProjects which may be interested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone makes mistakes and no one here is perfect .... however I'm not at all happy with their responses here, The same issue happened in 2018 and even then their responses weren't great..... Given their unsatisfactory responses here I genuinely question whether they should be an admin at all at this point. As I said everyone makes mistakes but I can't help but think this "mistake" will repeat itself again. –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I was just about to post something similar. @Hyacinth seems to have learnt nothing from 2018, and seems to be completely unconcerned by the unanimous opposition here to their actions.

Indeed, everyone makes mistakes ... but Hyacinth shows no sign of any interest in learning from their errors. I think that some sanction is in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl it wasn't even that long ago that they made another massive policy blunder in relation to deletion. This was only in July of this year. It does not appear to me that Hyacinth has an adequate understanding of deletion related policies, in either direction. And their response last time was unsatisfactory and swept under the rug. Praxidicae (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae this looks like an ongoing competence issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl I agree and also strongly believe that a case should be made to arbcom for desysopping. Praxidicae (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

On the evidence presented here, I would support such a request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed surprising and alarming, and seems to be a repeat issue. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Interested observer" comment: I was surprised to see the category "Pupil of Maria Curcio" deleted from Anthony Goldstone, because this is obviously a fact about the subject (AG) which is appropriate for "databasing", which is how I see the categories acting. Apart from anything else, there is a long tradition of tracing pupil-teacher "genealogies", which the categories would facilitate. I spent some time trying to get a grip on what is meant here by "defining". It is certainly not the same as the mathematical meaning, and the rather woolly stuff about what reliable sources do does not help much. But clearly a category should be something reliably testable, and reasonably clearcut. But then I read the CFD "discussion" and am gobsmacked. The nominator's rationale simply says "Not defining for pupils.", without any sort of explanation of what this is supposed to mean. There is no explanation or discussion of why Messiaen's pupils might be particularly vaguely defined; there are some hints that deleters think that being a pupil of X is "defining" if X is the only significant teacher, and several suggestions that "having a list is OK". But if the list is clearcut, a category is the obvious way to make it easy to obtain the data of this list programmatically. Anyway, I suggest that there should be an immediate repeat discussion about the Messiaen category spefically, with care taken that all interested parties (e.g. from the music project) get to participate, and I would rather guess there would be a snow-close in the opposite direction. I.e. the category is obviously well-defined (is that what you are trying to say?) and useful. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a perennial talking point and one of the tensions that exist in CFD between those whose specialty is categorization and those whose specialty is the topic that the category pertains to. Those who participate often in CFD stand by the guiding statement in WP:CAT that categories are meant "to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories" determined by essential (or "defining") characteristics of a trait. In other words, databasing isn't the main function of categories, navigation is. The hope is that when you look at the bottom of the article, it's not a swarming beehive of every single association that the article could possibly have, but features more careful curation to help others see what is most essential to that article, and thereby help navigate them to other articles that share that essential feature. In this sense, categories are meant to serve articles, and not the other way around.

Now perhaps "defining" is a poor choice of words (I'm not really sure how that term was decided), but it is often misinterpreted as saying that a certain topic or association is of no importance, or that it is vaguely defined, and of course that ruffles a lot of feathers. Rather, WP:NONDEF explains that "a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." A pretty common rule of thumb to assessing this that you may see CFD contributors use to ascertain whether a characteristic is defining is to see whether the characteristic is worth mentioning in the lead paragraph of the categorized article. Hope this explanation makes a bit more sense to you, Imaginatorium. bibliomaniac15 22:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bibliomaniac15: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." Are you seriously suggesting that teacher-pupil relationships between classical musicians aren't commonly and consistently laid out in RS? I've yet to read a biography that doesn't describe them in detail. They are fundamental to understanding where they stand in the tradition. I've even heard a pianist proudly describe himself as a great-grandpupil of Franz Liszt. WP is poor on Indian classical music, but teacher-pupil relationships in it are at least as important and relevant there as they are in Western music.

Is the school or university a person attended usually, or even at all often, mentioned in the lede? That rule-of-thumb is very bad. Narky Blert (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I make no arguments or suggestions either way; I have no stance on this particular set of cats. But I do wonder in the case that you describe whether being a great-grandpupil of Liszt would make them notable in the Wikipedia sense. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not, per WP:NOTINHERITED. It was merely an interesting snippet about a notable pianist. Narky Blert (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to be unblocked

It seems I was blocked by this user, BD2412, for this edits related to this message posted on my talk page. I can only assume however, as the user didn't bother providing a valid reason beyond the ambiguous "pattern of aggressive editing".

May I just say my edits on the presidential election subpages were in line with the accepted consensus that only candidates who have polled above 5% may be included in infoboxes. This was generally accepted until an IP account added a third party candidate who did not fulfil these guidelines, even another user agreed and reverted similarly. Trying to rectify this I reverted these edits and now I am thanked with a topic ban. Lovely stuff.

I'm not expecting my appeal to succeed as I've been treated with nothing but ill-intentions by several users for minute reasoning that only seemingly went against what they wanted. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: There are no records in your block log, so you have not been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I received this message from the aforementioned user, was this just an empty threat? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahh. @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken:, you have been topic banned from post-1932 US politics, broadly construed. Why did you you not report the IP's disruption to a noticeboard instead of trying to take the matter into your own hands? —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Usually reverting based on an established pattern/stable RFC doesn't result in an insta-topic ban. I think this is topic ban is a bit excessive. spryde | talk 18:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, he was instructed to come here. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't believe the IP was acting disruptively intentionally, so I sought to rectify the problems myself. If you wish, I may report him against since the IP went out of their way to revert all my individual reverts themselves, so it seems they may be more disruptive than I anticipated. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn. Recommend overturn of ban. I notice that the one warning left on MPUWT's user page was by Tartan357, who, on 2020 United States presidential election in Nebraska, made the same revert that MPUWT had made previously. I agree that a topic ban is disproportional and unwarranted at this time. I'd recommend advice to make sure to use an edit summary, but I'm not even finding a 1RR violation by this user. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC) clarified 20:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Context: This appears to involve the IP address 2600:1700:8d50:1ff0:598f:16e2:403c:9a1a on pages including, but not limited to, 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 2020 United States presidential election in Texas, and 2020 United States presidential election in Florida. I have alerted that IP to this topic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear, I imposed the topic ban in light of issues indicated by posts to this editor's talk page over the last six months, and a previous case brought against this editor in May at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Proposed six-month U.S. politics topic ban for User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken. I am not aware that an actual block record is required to institute a topic ban in an area under discretionary sanctions. BD2412 T 18:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Let the record show that it was you who proposed the earlier proposition in an attempt to ban me as well, your current reference to it implies you have no connection and only just happened upon this revelation. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I trust this admin's judgment in this topic area, given their prolific involvement. This would have been better served by action from an uninvolved admin. The full protections of the Joe Biden allegations article was a bizarre move that didn't demonstrate a lot of rationality. BD should forego tool usage from anything related to the upcoming election. The recent issue regarding the creation of the death of Donald Trump page leaves a lot to be desired as well. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
• How's that, C.Fred — you only see one warning on User talk:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken? Are you only counting warnings from October? I see a number of warnings from May 2020 onwards. Here's one from myself from May, endorsed by Doug Weller. Here's one from Mandruss from July. One from MelbourneStar in August. One from MrX also in August. I support BD2412's topic ban from American politics. Three months is shorter than I would have made it. Bishonen | tålk 19:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC).

Why am I just receiving this ban two months out form my last warning in August then, it only seems to fit my suspicions you and a handful of others are only interested in seeing me silenced with no questions asked rather than hearing whatever my appeal may be. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is your appeal and I'm assuming Bish, C.Fred and others have read this entire, short discussion. If there is other information that must be heard, now is the time to include it here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The appeal can't be more clearer, I was banned the very moment I was warned about edits relating to my reverts on the subpages of the 2020 presidential election page. It's not a loose connection to assert BD2412 saw that warning and assumed bad faith and thus felt they had the authority to topic ban me without further inquiry. That's what we're discussing here, unless I should be held up on charges whenever whatever user finds it necessary to leave a threat on my talk page for some petty affair. It's not arguable I've contributed greatly to this website with such creations as Ancestral background of presidents of the United States, no, it is crystal clear my logical conclusion of such users looking for a reason to ban me holds true as that is what has been shown today exactly. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: With all due respect, you're shooting yourself in the foot here. I don't feel like either Tartan357 or BD2412 acted in bad faith when they warned or banned you, respectively. I do feel like the ban may have been a little bit of a knee-jerk reaction given the nature of your edits. I will go further to say that I think Tartan357 acted in good faith when they left a warning on your user talk page. Warnings are not threats: they are advisories that there is an issue with a user's edits or conduct.

To me, the issue now becomes this appeal. If, going forward, your appeal focuses on how you were trying to bring the articles back to established consensus and that you didn't revert the same article twice, you're making a case for being a good editor. If you keep going down the path of being a poor, persecuted editor at the whims of the Nefarious Forces on Wikipedia...you're not going to convince us that you're a net positive to politics articles. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in this, but I did assume good faith on the part of MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken when I left that warning. The consensus for which pages Jo Jorgensen should be included on is a bit more complicated than some editors assume. There is consensus to include her on some pages but not others. But removing or adding her is really a major change that should at least be explained with an edit summary. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Tartan257 was never referred to when I claimed bad faith, I thought it clear I was solely referring to BD2412 when I did. Indeed I'm not backing away from that claim, why should I? He instantaneously topic banned me off that single warning with full, unbridled force; how am I to assume good faith off that? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As was noted in the previous discussion, User:MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken has established a pattern of making claims along the lines that there is an effort to "silence" their voice, and that this effort was predicated on the editor's "anti-Democrat sentiment", rather than his aggressive editing conduct. He was advised about discretionary sanctions in this topic area under a previous account User talk:Bold and Brash#Discretionary sanctions alert, and continued to engage in conduct such as creating a talk page section titled "Kissing Whitmer's backside" to describe article content with which they disagreed, and engaged in this exercise in soapboxing. Even after the previous ANI discussion, the editor continued to engage in contentious edits in this topic area, for example with the edit summary stating of User:MrX, "if this isn't obvious enough for my stalker, MrX". We are at the time of the year when silliness of this kind reaches its crescendo, and when we must regard disruptions most strictly. So far as I am aware, a ninety-day topic ban is a fairly light sanction, but I would be fine with substantially reducing it. BD2412 T 21:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-Democrat sentiment"? From who and where are you dredging these quotes from? I assume this must've been a sarcastic comment from me, however you choose to use it with no sense of context in another effort to smear me, as you seem to make a habit of.

Your topic ban of me was predicated off of a revert of which I performed based off the established consensus which was then broken by an IP user is, must I repeat myself, a bad faith effort in your now second attempt to see me removed from your chosen domain. Your first one was predicated off an attempt to assert I was somehow a sock puppet, when I corrected you I never even received so much an acknowledgment you were wrong. You have no regard for the rules only to achieve your aims. It's a disgrace. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You specifically stated in this edit "Of course I'm expressing anti-Democrat sentiment so I'm sure I'll be raising the alarm bells of the other editors as I haven't expressed more "sensible" opinions such as suggesting Trump won't be reelected via weasel words"; the concern would be no different if you were complaining of expressing "anti-Republican sentiment". BD2412 T 21:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for proving me correct, how one cannot see the complete sarcasm in my tone I fail to see. For all your assertions of balance, you fail to recognize I was responding in protest to the preceding comment which read, "Don't bring Pelosi or Cuomo into this. They're not the ones trying to pack churches in the middle of a pandemic." How this isn't what you claim as "anti-Republican sentiment" I'm totally flabbergasted by. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There are appropriate forums to raise concerns about the conduct of other editors in a discussion, rather than engaging in one-upsmanship in the discussion. BD2412 T 21:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't act the superior when you indulged in what you're now preaching against mere moments ago. I'm only doing as you have done yourself right here on this very thread. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I am raising your conduct here because this is the appropriate forum for so doing. BD2412 T 21:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

And I raise yours as your conduct has equally come into question by me and several other users. You are the one who enacted the ban thus it's fitting we look into you as much as you will into me. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That comes with being an administrator and enforcing discretionary sanctions in contentious areas. BD2412 T 21:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad we're at an agreement then. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I only see one recent one, then nothing back to August. Further, the only issue I see with the recent edits is the reverting. Had there been other conduct issues, then a block probably would have been more in order than a ban. Mr Ernie also raises a salient point about BD's involvement, and BD was the editor to initiate the previous ANI request for a topic ban. I don't think that completely taints the ban, as BD's request might have been in the capacity of admin seeking agreement for the action. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Recommend overturn of TBAN I think the TBAN was out of process and as Ernie has stated this is also possibly a violation of WP:INVOLVED by BD. BD could have sought consensus for the TBAN decision since the project was not immediately at risk. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Lightburst: Can you point out where you think there is a WP:INVOLVED issue? I have never edited the article over which the most recent objection was raised. I have, of coursed, pushed for zero tolerance of misconduct in political articles (and have done so without regard to political leaning). BD2412 T 21:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep TBAN I've seen no convincing indication that the current TBAN is onerous or inappropriate. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Than you mustn't have read it. Understand the ban was enacted because of my enforcement of a consensus, to assume anything else is to acknowledge this ban was ruled off my following the rules, and because of my following the rules I must face subsequent punishment. I could've faced a topic ban at any time but I was banned not even an hour after this, and the precedent this sets forces any and all users to walk on eggshells lest they face a ban they have no say in for the slightest of errors. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You are aware of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and the Law of holes, right? Thirteen comments (43% of the comments in this section) is a bit much. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This is detracting from my appeal and I'm asking you to focus on that and not pedantics. This is my first response to a !vote on this section and most of my other comments were in response to another user in one singular thread. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn TBAN - BD2412 is evidently an involved editor: asking for a sanction against an editor, and then later implementing it yourself. What's worse is the attempt to mislead editors with a previous case brought against this editor in May by failing to mention the key fact that that case was brought by you. I would consider this abuse of the tools, but I also know the admins here wouldn't lift a finger to do anything about it. Practically, MPUWT, this TBAN isn't going to be overturned (I'm sure you don't need to be told why). Mr rnddude (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

  Note by editor who made the comment: Striking a comment proven wrong by Black Kite and Floquenbeam. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  That is not what WP:INVOLVED means. I would also suggest that you strike your personal attack asserting an "attempt to mislead editors". The assertion that "the admins here wouldn't lift a finger to do anything about it" leaves me wondering why you are posting an opinion on the administrator's noticeboard at all. BD2412 T 23:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hard to know exactly where to hat this, but this all has zero to do with the appeal. -Floquenbeam (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You're a liar by omission. Deal with it. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked, for 31 hours, as this is conduct clearly unacceptable on this noticeboard. BD2412 T 23:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC) So you don't like being called out for being involved then trying to hide it... so you make another involved block of someone? I think the law of holes applies to you here, BD2412. Absolutely absurd, and Mr rnddude should be starting the arbcom case request now, given that this happened during a discussion of your involved actions. 198.90.109.60 (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC) The IP does not belong to me. I have not ever set foot on the Americas (either of them). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (Sigh) - WP:DUCK block for obvious block evasion. BD2412 T 23:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC) I would undo that block, if I were you. Whilst that was clearly a personal attack, blocking him yourself in the middle of a discussion about INVOLVED is a spectacularly bad idea. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC) The WP:INVOLVED discussion is a red herring, and should not be allowed to serve as a distraction. If we do not maintain a baseline level of civility in these discussions, this becomes just another forum on the internet. BD2412 T 23:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC) It's your call, of course. I would have left it to another administrator to decide, however. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC) BD2412 You are misusing the tools IMO. The Black Kite is correct. Please undo that block. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC) I have reduced the block to one hour. The IP that appeared for the first time on Wikipedia to echo the cadence of the blocked editor is typical of block evasion, and I have no confidence in the editor's denial. However, I have no desire to get further into the weeds with additional sanctions. BD2412 T 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC) You have given the editor a scarlet letter. Sadly. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC) We don't call each other liars in this forum lightly. I have raised broken windows theory in this forum often. If we allow such violations because we are trying to prize an appearance of sensitivity over the rule of law, we only invite further violations. BD2412 T 00:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Thank you for striking the sockpuppetry allegation. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Multiple editors and an Admin have referred to me an asshole on ANI and never caught a block. When I struck it with (Personal attack removed) it was unstruck. But I have no tools and nobody else cared including the admin who said it initially. We have two standards here. Some editors get wide latitude. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As this discussion has tended to go off the rails, I will step back from it and allow the rest of the admin community to address the underlying question of whether the topic ban should remain in place for some period. BD2412 T 00:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• My read on this is that BD made a[n understandable] mistake in seeing a string of edits removing prominent information by a user who has done some concerning things in the past. No, BD was not involved (putting aside the other block that happened in this thread) but I'm having trouble seeing any tban worthy edits made by MPUWT this month. The series of edits was indeed in line with consensus and other recent edits seem innocuous enough. Looks like people used this opportunity to jump on both BD and MPUWT, which is unfortunate, and given the way this thread went I can't blame either side for being a bit resentful at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak overturn (non-admin comment): Most of the recent reverts that MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken did were supported by consensus. The Indiana revert was not, but I imagine that was simply an oversight. I don't see anything related to the warning I gave as warranting a topic ban, although I am unfamiliar with MPUWT's history outside of this incident. I suggest that they make better use of edit summaries to avoid the appearance of disruptive editing, especially when making large, potentially controversial changes. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think MPUNWT's tban should be overturned but I also would suggest they consider that, if we are here, chances are they are doing something wrong even if that something doesn't warrant the penalty at hand. MPUWNT, I think something that a number of experienced editors figure out over time is how to make their edits appear calm and focused on the content, not the editors they disagree with even when they are certain the other editor must have implanted said head in said rectum. Try to stick to "just the facts" and if there is a question if an edit will violate an article level restriction post to the talk page first. Your edits here are bludgeoning the discussion and come off as very defensive. If you can figure out the core of the criticism, even if you don't agree with it, and make a statement that you will (truthfully) strive to avoid such issues in the future (ideally by doing XYZ) you will likely find a receptive ear here. Springee (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn all of it (sorry for the length)
  1. In the May ANI brought by BD about MPUWT's editing in the subject area of U.S. politics, BD wrote: I am avoiding taking administrative action in articles in this area, as I have edited substantively in the area, as was raised in a previous discussion here. The previous discussion (I assume) refers to the April ANI thread wherein BD full-protected Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. In that ANI, BD wrote, I have no problem focusing my admin activities elsewhere. and the ANI was closed with ... BD2412 has agreed to focus their admin efforts elsewhere ... I thought this "involved" thing was over in April, and I thought BD starting the ANI thread in May, seeking community discussion rather than taking unilateral action, was absolutely awesome, an example of thoughtful admin-ing.
     So it's disappointing to see BD unilaterally topic ban an editor because of an edit to 2020 United States presidential election in Indiana, which is the same topic area that BD previously said he would not use admin tools in. I don't know what happened between April and October, but I still stand by BD being too involved in the 2020 election to use his admin tools, and nothing can unring that bell. The ban of MPUWT should be formally overturned on WP:INVOLVED grounds as an outcome of this thread.
  2. The block of mr rnddude was also too involved. I'm a bit outraged by BD tarnishing a clean block log because someone called him a liar in a thread reviewing his admin actions. Admisn should not block editors for what they say in threads that are reviews of the admin's use of tools. It's an obvious and inescapable conflict of interest. To use a legal analogy, a judge can hold someone in contempt for what they say in court, but not in a trial where the judge is the defendant. Reducing the block to 1hr was also a terrible idea, because it sabotages the review process by making the block moot, without any acknowledgment that the block was very wrong in the first place. The block of mr rnddude should be formally overturned as an outcome of this thread, and thanks to Floq for fixing the block log.
  3. MPUWT's username is one of my favorites, and I hope they remain an editor in good standing just so the username doesn't go to waste. However, their talk page shows a bunch of complaints from a bunch of different editors about a bunch of different things, and that's always a bad sign. If MPUWT doesn't figure out how to piss off fewer people and less often, they're going to get voted off the island (which they already know). It'd be better for the encyclopedia if MPUWT figured out how to avoid that. In that topic area, it's going to require a lot of turning the other cheek, not responding in kind, biting your tongue and not making forumy posts like the May comment that Bish warned for. I hope MPUWT realizes that even if the tban gets overturned here, that doesn't mean they were right all along and everyone else was wrong. For the sake of their kick-ass username, I hope they figure out the necessary adjustments. (Springee has good advice on that above.)
  4. Finally, and in light of Tartan's comments here, I'm not seeing any recent (30 days) diffs that justify a tban. Lev!vich 05:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you Levivich, but had any other admin blocked me, that block would have been unoverturnable (to coin a new word). As both Black Kite and Floq pointed out: it's a personal attack but somebody else should have handled it. My block log says the block was a 'very bad idea', that's more generous than I could have expected. The victim here is the IP who BD assumed erroneously was me and blocked as well. Floq overturned that block as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I support reducing the topic ban to 30 days duration, keeping it through the upcoming U.S. election. Why? Because I think that the editor has shown in this very conversation a paranoid, confrontational and tendentious style of editing incompatible with working on election coverage at this time. As for Levivich's affection for the username, I beg to differ. I consider it borderline trolling, and am unaware of anyone with this style of username ever becoming a productive, long term editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligence block and ban issue

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Trolling in April, the range Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 was blocked from Race and intelligence, while the editor was also topic banned. The block expired after three months. At Talk:Heritability of IQ#Claims of "scientific consensus" the IP seems to think this also means the ban expired. My understanding is that ban was indefinite, and the IP editor has not appealed this. As far as I know, they haven't addressed it at all. The use of a huge IP range makes this confusing, and the IP knows this and is clearly taking advantage of it.

This editor has resumed the same bad-faith pot-stirring and POV pushing which lead to the ban in the first place:

• This edit to User talk:Stonkaments misrepresents the situation and casts aspersions against User:NightHeron (without even pinging NightHeron). The IP's past conspiracy theory nonsense was specifically the tipping point which led to the ban.
• Today we have this edit to User talk:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West. The IP editor is nudging and hinting that another editor should fill an Arbitration Enforcement report against me. The IP already tried this exact tactic last year. This editor must realize that if they create an account so they can do it themselves, they will be blocked or topic banned, so it sure looks like they are, once again, using their lack of an account as a way to avoid accountability.

As this IP shifts very frequently, there is no simple way to notify this editor of this discussion. Notifying the most recent IP would just be theatrics, but I'm sure they will figure it out from other notifications. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the question of whether my topic ban has expired or not, there is something else that ought to be discussed here. The most important reason I'd like these articles to be in arbitration is that there is a banned Wikipedia user who has been editing them semi-regularly for nearly a year, and I would like to present evidence to ArbCom about this editor's identity. I know this editor's identity because until five months ago, I was a participant in a private Slack server in which this person's actions on Wikipedia were coordinated. However, this evidence involves private information, so I think that it would be inappropriate to present it outside of an arbitration request.

There are a few other Wikipedia users who also are aware of this banned user's actions (due to also being members of the Slack), but the other users aren't particularly active and are unlikely to raise the issue themselves. Thus, I think that having the opportunity to raise this issue with ArbCom myself is the only way any action is likely to be taken about it. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So, to summarize, you are repeatedly violating a topic ban, but what you really want is to violate WP:OUTING? --JBL (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) IP's revelation that RationalWiki is being deliberately undermined by alt-right parody trolls has led me to the realisation that I need to procure a stouter gauge of tinfoil. Narky Blert (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually know quite a bit more about the trolling at RationalWiki than I initially let on, because this was coordinated in the same Slack server that I mentioned previously. Most of the RationalWiki trolling happened in 2018, and I didn't leave the server until the end of April this year, so I had full view of what they were doing to RationalWiki while it was happening. So if anyone wants a list of some of the articles that I know were written as parodies, or clues that their authors deliberately left so that astute readers would know they were trolling, I'd be happy to provide that. 2600:1004:B117:77AD:8C1A:DED2:C5B3:64DC (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So instead of addressing the topic ban in any way, the IP claims to have participated in a coordinated trolling campaign which targeted both Wikipedia and other projects. Is this supposed to be a bargaining chip? Since the IP was editing this topic while still part of this supposed slack group, this is an admission to having been part of an off-site trolling campaign. This is WP:MEAT and WP:HARASSMENT.

Doubling-down on this strained conspiracy theory is disruptive. If the IP editor wants to appeal, they should actually appeal. After that, they can follow WP:OUTING if there's anything to this. If that means creating an account, so be it. It's damning that this only comes up now, as change-of-subject after violating a topic ban. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I admit to approving of the parody trolling at RationalWiki, but when they started doing the same thing at Wikipedia I never supported it. Isn't that obvious? If I'd supported it, I would have voted "yes" to the proposal in the RFC. I previously avoided discussing the Slack server in public because I wanted to avoid betraying the contents of private correspondence, but keeping something private isn't the same as supporting the trolling or participating in it. And now that I've been removed from the Slack, I also don't feel the need to keep it private anymore.

And we can stop calling it the "supposed Slack group". The Slack server in question was titled "Quantitative HBD Workspace" and it was located here: http://kirkegaardjp.slack.com/ This server had a channel named "Wikipedia" where the parody trolling at both RationalWiki and Wikipedia was discussed. The server apparently has been deleted now, but that didn't happen until after I was removed, so I don't know whether the deletion was related to what I posted about this in April. 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, you're avoiding the issue of being topic-banned, and no, it's not "obvious". You actively edited a topic while participating in a private off-site trolling campaign. You will have to create an account and email ArbCom if you want to pursue this.

So now you know what you have to do. You must abide by WP:BANEX. Changing the subject again isn't appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@IP: Visit User:Arbitration Committee to see how to confidentially report problems such as an active banned user. That page gives an email address you can use. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but my existing experience with ArbCom suggests they're very unlikely to do anything unless someone requests a case (and maybe not even then). 2600:1004:B141:BC2F:7D26:87F0:4849:C2EB (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

How convenient. Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A conflict of interest has previously been declared by the IP and is still obvious. If this closes without action a COIN thread is likely a good idea, —PaleoNeonate – 08:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I don't want to get involved in your dispute, nor do I want to file any report against any editor. Thank you. Iroh (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Lots of content removed from pages.

The user 185.139.36.241 has spammed multiple times link to his contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.227.149 (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've created a report at WP:AIV, the correct venue for this kind of pure vandalism block requests. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 10:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, please ensure that the subject of the ANI report is notified of it as indicated at the top of the page. I have done so for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tamilreporter123

• Tamilreporter123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New editor started making edits in the Indian BLP and religion subject area, exclusively marked (incorrectly) as minor edits. Special:Diff/981290840 said the government was illegaly [sic] using temple funds, and that the temple was run by an evangelist, neither of which were sourced. I left them this note after others had reverted their edits, dealing with the controversial topic requiring cites, the misuse of the minor checkbox, and the need to manually fix the auto-fill of citations from Times of India (they did provide one source for something).

They responded here and here, doing us the favor of "fixing their mistakes this time".

After they ignored the note and made another edit marked minor incorrectly, I responded here to hopefully clarify their understanding that there were three separate issues, since, AGF, they may not have seen the one about minor. They continue to make unreferened, derogatory edits regarding religion, like Special:Diff/981754283, despite multiple warnings by myself and others, responding only with "I have proof". I responded more strongly Special:Diff/982057666. This morning, I find that bonadea was on the watch (thanks!) and reverted this accusation of racism from my user page.

Note they created Draft:Thf.

Apparently not mature enough to care to follow the rules, especially in such a contentious topic area, and jumps to a totally baseless personal attack when the message is delivered more emphatically. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Clearly lacks either the intention or the competence to edit collaboratively, a nice mixture of unsourced controversial material, misrepresented sources, and personal attacks. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Mazca, thank you for the speedy deletion, it was very cool. I was requesting it privately. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Incivility of User:AleviQizilbash

I am not a heavily-involved editor with regard to User:AleviQizilbash, but I have noted numerous times over the past few weeks that other established editors are having problems with this relatively novice user. In my estimation, the problems he exhibits are not subsiding after previous warnings. In fact, he is quickly reverting new warnings being left for him. My observation includes the following:

• (Oct 6) accused me of harassment, obsession, endless stalking, and religious/nationalist hatred.
• (Oct 6) characterizes other editors as "triggered" and describes warnings as "useless".
• (Oct 6) invokes my name to complain about harassing and stalking (again), when the previous message was merely pointing out that AleviQizilbash had finally begun to engage in Talk page discussions before making contentious edits.
• (Sep 13) While the relatively novice editor generally expects respect for his views on the religious attributes of historical figures, he describes the mother of Jesus as "adulterous Mary who opened her private parts to Roman soldiers", which shows an appalling lack of decorum.

As I said, if I were more involved in the topical disputes surrounding this user, I could give better (or at least more) examples. But I hope that the above is sufficient evidence to suggest that the current line of "repeated warnings" may not be having an effect on User:AleviQizilbash that is beneficial to the Wikipedia community. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)